King v. Dolan

151 N.E. 109, 255 Mass. 236, 1926 Mass. LEXIS 1104
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 8, 1926
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 151 N.E. 109 (King v. Dolan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
King v. Dolan, 151 N.E. 109, 255 Mass. 236, 1926 Mass. LEXIS 1104 (Mass. 1926).

Opinion

By the Court.

This is an appeal from a decree of the Probate Court appointing one Dolan one of two guardians of an illegitimate infant. One of the next of kin of the infant had petitioned for the appointment of another person and has appealed from the decree on the grounds that the appointment of Dolan was not requested and was opposed [237]*237by the next of kin and that he is a partner of the executor of the will of the mother of the infant and the interests of the guardian and such executor appear to be diverse because said infant was not mentioned in the will of his deceased mother.

There is no diversity of interest on the latter ground because an illegitimate child is not included within the meaning of G. L. c. 191, § 20, giving a child omitted from the will of a parent the same share in the estate as if the parent had died intestate unless the facts there stated appear. Kent v. Barker, 2 Gray, 535. King v. Thissell, 222 Mass. 140. The will of the mother having been allowed, it would be utterly unwarranted for a guardian of the infant to prosecute litigation under G. L. c. 190, § 5; c. 191, § 20.

The evidence is not reported. The findings of the judge, without reciting them, disclose careful consideration of all aspects of the interests of the infant in reaching his conclusion and fail to indicate any misuse of judicial discretion. The persons appointed as guardians appear to be disinterested and competent. The appointment of guardians rests in the sound judgment of the probate judge, to be exercised with an eye single to the welfare of the ward. Woodworth v. Spring, 4 Allen, 321. Davis, petitioner, 237 Mass. 47, 49. The desires of the next of kin are not controlling though of course to be given due weight.

Decree affirmed.

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

Related

Guardianship of B.V.G.
52 N.E.3d 988 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2016)
Jennings v. Nathanson
404 F. Supp. 2d 380 (D. Massachusetts, 2005)
In the Matter of McKnight
550 N.E.2d 856 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1990)
Guardianship of Anthony
524 N.E.2d 1361 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1988)
Lowinger v. Herlihy
472 N.E.2d 676 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1985)
New England Merchants National Bank v. Spillane
442 N.E.2d 421 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1982)
Guardianship of Bassett
385 N.E.2d 1024 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1979)
Hanson v. Markham
356 N.E.2d 702 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1976)
Fiduciary Trust Co. v. Mishou
75 N.E.2d 3 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1947)
Town of Plymouth v. Hey
285 Mass. 357 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
151 N.E. 109, 255 Mass. 236, 1926 Mass. LEXIS 1104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-dolan-mass-1926.