Estate of Meiklejohn

152 P. 734, 171 Cal. 247, 1915 Cal. LEXIS 614
California Supreme Court·Decided October 18, 1915·No. L. A. No. 4127.·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Shaw, J. On the authority of the case of In re KirkmanEstate, 168 Cal. 688, [144 P. 745], the order appealed from will be affirmed.

The only difference between that case and this is that in that case the guardian removed was not a parent of the minor while in this case the guardian displaced was her father. This relationship, however, is of no consequence, since the statute gives the minor the authority to select a new guardian, and does not make such power dependent upon relationship. The order of the court appointing the nominated guardian constitutes an approval of her selection, and *Page 248 makes the order valid under the statute unless it is made to appear that the court below abused its discretion in such approval. No attempt is made to show this.

The order is affirmed.

Sloss, J., and Lawlor, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Estate of Meiklejohn, 152 P. 734, 171 Cal. 247, 1915 Cal. LEXIS 614 (Cal. 1915).

152 P. 734 (Estate of Meiklejohn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Estate and Guardianship of Sowerwine
413 P.2d 48 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1966)
Guardianship of Kentera
262 P.2d 317 (California Supreme Court, 1953)
Gottlieb v. MacLean
244 P.2d 63 (California Court of Appeal, 1952)
Guardianship of Gianoli
140 P.2d 987 (California Court of Appeal, 1943)
Guardianship of Burket
137 P.2d 475 (California Court of Appeal, 1943)
In Re Guardianship of Kerr
85 P.2d 145 (California Court of Appeal, 1938)
State Ex Rel. Stimatz v. District Court
74 P.2d 8 (Montana Supreme Court, 1937)
Collins v. Superior Court
199 P. 352 (California Court of Appeal, 1921)
Craycroft v. McSwain
168 P. 117 (California Supreme Court, 1917)