Hanley v. Russell

63 N.H. 614
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedDecember 5, 1883
StatusPublished

This text of 63 N.H. 614 (Hanley v. Russell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hanley v. Russell, 63 N.H. 614 (N.H. 1883).

Opinion

Clark, J.

In the appointment of a guardian of a minor, no notice is required. G. L., c. 192, s. 2. It is not necessary to consider whether, as suggested in the arguments, the controversy respecting the appointment of the defendant as guardian arises-from a diversity of religious creeds, or whether theology is to be regarded in the appointment of a guardjan. There are in this case no facts raising any question of religious education; nor are the alleged reasons of appeal sustained by the facts proved. The finding that there was occasion for the appointment of a guardian, and that the defendant is a suitable person for the trust, does not show that the decree is erroneous, or that the appellant is legally aggrieved by it. Waldron v. Woodman, 58 N. H. 15; Lunt v. Aubens, 39 Me. 392. It does not appear that there is any person more suitable than the defendant.

Appeal dismissed.

Allen, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

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

Related

Lunt v. Aubens
39 Me. 392 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1855)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 N.H. 614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanley-v-russell-nh-1883.