Grinbaum v. Superior Court of California

221 P. 653, 192 Cal. 783, 1923 Cal. LEXIS 382
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 17, 1923
DocketS. F. No. 10685.
StatusPublished

This text of 221 P. 653 (Grinbaum v. Superior Court of California) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Grinbaum v. Superior Court of California, 221 P. 653, 192 Cal. 783, 1923 Cal. LEXIS 382 (Cal. 1923).

Opinion

We have this day rendered decisions holding that the guardian of the person and the guardian of the estate of Julie Grinbaum were appointed by void orders. We have, also, held that by reason of these decisions it is unnecessary to pass upon the qualifications of the judge to try the proceedings for restoration to capacity because the respective proceedings for the appointment of the respective guardians of the person and estate were void and that the proceedings for restoration to capacity based upon the validity of such orders of appointment must fall with the orders appointing the respective guardians. [1] For the same reason it is unnecessary to issue amandamus to compel the respondent judge to make an order for the taking of the depositions of certain individuals to be used upon the trial of the pending application of Julie Grinbaum for restoraton to capacity.

Petition dismissed.

Lawlor, J., Lennon, J., Kerrigan, J., Waste, J., and Myers, J., concurred. *Page 784

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE IS BLANK.] *Page 785

In Memoriam.
TO THE MEMORY OF CRARLES STETSON WHEELER.
Memorial Presented to the Supreme Court, in Open Court, at Its Courtroom in the New State Building, Civic Center, San Francisco, Monday, December 17, 1923, at 12:00 o'clock, Noon, and Ordered Inscribed in Full upon the Minutes of the Court by Chief Justice Wilbur.

MR. JOHN L. McNAB, for the Committee:

May It Please the Court: We appear this morning to lay before the highest tribunal of the State a simple tribute to the life and work of one of the noblest advocates who ever graced its sessions.

Through us, who constitute this committee of the San Francisco Bar Association, the legal profession pays its homage to the character, the life and the genius of Charles Stetson Wheeler.

He was born in Fruitvale, Alameda County, California, on the eleventh day of December, 1863. He was educated in the public schools and was graduated from the University of California in 1884. A young man of fine physique, trained and disciplined by the University, he entered with high ambition and prodigious energy upon his legal studies. Within less than two years he was admitted to practice by the Court, and almost immediately became associated with the leading causes at the Bar and continued so until the end of his life.

He died on the twenty-seventh day of April, 1923, in the fifty-ninth year of his age, in this city that he loved and served, and in which his greatest triumphs and struggles were recorded.

Great careers do not require extended eulogies. They write their own biographies. The life history of strong men is written in the forces they have set in motion; the victories they have won; the monuments of industry, eloquence and human service their genius has reared.

For thirty years the name of Charles S. Wheeler has been synonymous with leadership of the Bar of California. *Page 786

He came to the forum as a leader of the new generation of California lawyers when the Feltons, the McAllisters, and the Wilsons were passing from the active scene. He belonged, by birth and instinctive choice, to that class of courtly gentlemen whose bearing adds that subtle and indefinable thing called "atmosphere" to the courtroom. His magnetism arrested every eye. Ever courteous to a frank and truthful witness, he was like a tiger unleashed to the perjurer. All the graces of the orator were his — elegance of diction, a keen wit, a copious and abounding vocabulary, a voice of rare timbre and volume, added to a commanding figure crowned with a noble brow.

In the last decade the art of advocacy in California seems to have languished, perhaps because no great causes, filled with dramatic situations, have held the center of the stage. Such causes usually arise during the formative periods of society, when issues of state or life or property grip with intensity the feelings of the public. Great dramas of life, like great crises of history, produce actors fitted for the part. It was in these mighty dramas, that swayed the passions of the multitude and packed courtrooms with eager and excited listeners, that this great advocate achieved his greatest triumphs.

Among the many who have entered the lists in this State, few ever brought so rich an equipment as he. He had the good fortune to be born without riches. To talents of no ordinary measure he added an infinite capacity for intensive work. While others slumbered, he toiled; with him preparation was more than a science — it was a religion. Mastery of the great causes with which he was associated could not be obtained without a profound knowledge of the law, yet no subject was too intricate, no problem too subtle to baffle either his ingenuity or his tireless industry. He was resourceful in expedients and gifted with an unsurpassed ingenuity to devise legal theories best suited for his cause. His constructive imagination, aided by his complete preparedness, permitted him before entering upon the trial, to comprehend the full scope of the legal drama about to be enacted, and to visualize it from its first scene to its end. This comprehension of the work in hand made him a most formidable opponent. With rare judgment, from the many theories suggested in the course of preparation, he *Page 787 planned the line of fire. He excelled in strategy and in a logical presentation of his evidence. He was never surprised, but was himself ever alert to inflict great surprises. His conduct of the trial was characterized by boldness, sometimes bordering upon audacity. His attack was violent and sustained, and brought dismay to his adversary. Twice he was tendered the exalted position of Chief Justice of this Court, and twice he refused it because he felt his temperament was that of an advocate rather than a judge.

The great causes before this high tribunal in which Mr. Wheeler played the dominant part stand forth in strong relief in its memory. They form, in a long perspective, milestones in the history of our equity jurisprudence. Conspicuously successful as he was in all his professioal work, there is one department of the law in which he attained conceded primacy, superior to all of the gifted men who have practiced at this Bar: The law of Uses and Trusts, and Executory Devises — that recondite and most abstruse department of equity. Through his preparation, through his almost infinite labor and research, he had become familiar with every case and the doctrines and declarations of every learned man who had written upon these subjects, and his capacious mind and marvelous memory enabled him to retain not only the titles of the cases, but the nice and delicate distinctions made in each. In his brain were registered all the rulings and all the doctrines. No one will challenge the statement that in the most difficult branch of equity jurisprudence, the law of Uses and Trusts, Mr. Wheeler became one of the great authorities of the American and English Bar.

Justly, therefore, may it be said for a quarter of a century the commanding figure of Charles S. Wheeler towered in the foremost rank of California lawyers. None was more forceful or more impressive; seldom have any been more eloquent. Few were his equal, none his superior, within his time, either in the profundity of their learning or the clarity of its exposition.

His duties to his clients he never suffered to interfere with the claims of citizenship. He was a virile citizen.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
221 P. 653, 192 Cal. 783, 1923 Cal. LEXIS 382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grinbaum-v-superior-court-of-california-cal-1923.