Guardianship of O'Connor

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Guardianship of O'Connor

1 N.W.2d 873, 239 Wis. 410, 1942 Wisc. LEXIS 11

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 2, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1 N.W.2d 873 (Guardianship of O'Connor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Guardianship of O'Connor, 1 N.W.2d 873, 239 Wis. 410, 1942 Wisc. LEXIS 11 (Wis. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Fairchild, J.

While the evidence accented as controlling by the county court sustains the finding that appellant is mentally incapable of managing and protecting his own property, it does not sufficiently show physical infirmities to warrant a conclusion that a guardian of his person is required.

Appellant has devoted his life to service in a high calling. For many years as a priest of the Roman Catholic church he has followed a manner of life that has built up strongly formed habits and placed him in favorable surroundings. All these facts, considered in connection with his present capacity of taking physical care of himself, do not present a case for placing his person in the custody of a guardian. It appears, rather, that the assistance available and which is provided by him together with the income from his property when properly managed by the guardian of his estate will enable him. to pursue his usual method of life and enjoy the reasonable comforts and independence he has been used to. Although *412 not capable of handling his business affairs, he appears to be sufficiently in possession of faculties so that no urgent reasons exist for restricting his right of liberty. Plis tastes and daily practices ought not to be encroached upon by placing his person in the custody of a guardian. Guardianship of Welch, 108 Wis. 387, 84 N. W. 550; Guardianship of Warner, 232 Wis. 467, 287 N. W. 803.

It is considered that the findings that he is so physically infirm as to be unable to take care of himself is against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence and the order, so far as it is based on that finding, is not sustained.

By the Court. — Order modified so as to limit the appointment of the guardian to the estate and revoke that portion thereof which places the appellant's person under guardianship, and as so modified is affirmed.

Fritz and MartiN, JJ., dissent from that part of the mandate which affirms the order as modified thereby.

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

Fairchild, J.

While the evidence accented as controlling by the county court sustains the finding that appellant is mentally incapable of managing and protecting his own property, it does not sufficiently show physical infirmities to warrant a conclusion that a guardian of his person is required.

Appellant has devoted his life to service in a high calling. For many years as a priest of the Roman Catholic church he has followed a manner of life that has built up strongly formed habits and placed him in favorable surroundings. All these facts, considered in connection with his present capacity of taking physical care of himself, do not present a case for placing his person in the custody of a guardian. It appears, rather, that the assistance available and which is provided by him together with the income from his property when properly managed by the guardian of his estate will enable him. to pursue his usual method of life and enjoy the reasonable comforts and independence he has been used to. Although *412 not capable of handling his business affairs, he appears to be sufficiently in possession of faculties so that no urgent reasons exist for restricting his right of liberty. Plis tastes and daily practices ought not to be encroached upon by placing his person in the custody of a guardian. Guardianship of Welch, 108 Wis. 387, 84 N. W. 550; Guardianship of Warner, 232 Wis. 467, 287 N. W. 803.

It is considered that the findings that he is so physically infirm as to be unable to take care of himself is against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence and the order, so far as it is based on that finding, is not sustained.

By the Court. — Order modified so as to limit the appointment of the guardian to the estate and revoke that portion thereof which places the appellant's person under guardianship, and as so modified is affirmed.

Fritz and MartiN, JJ., dissent from that part of the mandate which affirms the order as modified thereby.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 N.W.2d 873, 239 Wis. 410, 1942 Wisc. LEXIS 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guardianship-of-oconnor-wis-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack