In Re Ingram's Guardianship

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

In Re Ingram's Guardianship

1925 OK 44, 232 P. 950, 105 Okla. 296, 1925 Okla. LEXIS 19

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 20, 1925

DocketNo. 15116

StatusPublished

This text of 1925 OK 44 (In Re Ingram's Guardianship) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Ingram's Guardianship, 1925 OK 44, 232 P. 950, 105 Okla. 296, 1925 Okla. LEXIS 19 (Okla. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiffs in error have filed motion to dismiss the appeal in the above cause on the ground that Leonard D. Ingram, the minor, has reached his majority since the appeal was lodged in this court, and since the question involved was the right of the guardian appointed in Washington, D.C., to remove moneys of the minor from the jurisdiction of the court and the custody of his guardians in this state, and this question being settled by the majority of the minor the same is moot in this court.

We think this is correct, the motion should be sustained and the appeal should be dismissed, at the cost of the plaintiffs in error.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Note. — See under (1) 4 C. J. p. 584. *Page 297

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

Plaintiffs in error have filed motion to dismiss the appeal in the above cause on the ground that Leonard D. Ingram, the minor, has reached his majority since the appeal was lodged in this court, and since the question involved was the right of the guardian appointed in Washington, D.C., to remove moneys of the minor from the jurisdiction of the court and the custody of his guardians in this state, and this question being settled by the majority of the minor the same is moot in this court.

We think this is correct, the motion should be sustained and the appeal should be dismissed, at the cost of the plaintiffs in error.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Note. — See under (1) 4 C. J. p. 584. *Page 297

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1925 OK 44, 232 P. 950, 105 Okla. 296, 1925 Okla. LEXIS 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ingrams-guardianship-okla-1925.