Meiklejohn v. Meiklejohn

California Supreme Court

Meiklejohn v. Meiklejohn

171 Cal. 247

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 18, 1915

DocketL. A. No. 4127

StatusPublished

This text of 171 Cal. 247 (Meiklejohn v. Meiklejohn) 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

Meiklejohn v. Meiklejohn, 171 Cal. 247 (Cal. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

Shaw, J. On the authority of the case of In re Kirkman, Estate, 168 Cal. 688, [144 Pac. 745], the order appealed from will be affirmed.

The only difference between that case and this is that in that case the guardian removed was not a parent of the minor while in this case the guardian displaced was her father. This relationship, however, is of no consequence, since the statute gives the minor the authority to select a new guardian, and does not make such power dependent upon relationship. The order of the court appointing the nominated guardian constitutes an approval of her selection, and [248]*248makes the order valid under the statute unless it is made to appear that the court below abused its discretion in such approval. No attempt is made to show this.

The order is affirmed.,

Sloss, J., and Lawlor, J., concurred.

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

THE COURT.

Shaw, J. On the authority of the case of In re Kirkman, Estate, 168 Cal. 688, [144 Pac. 745], the order appealed from will be affirmed.

The only difference between that case and this is that in that case the guardian removed was not a parent of the minor while in this case the guardian displaced was her father. This relationship, however, is of no consequence, since the statute gives the minor the authority to select a new guardian, and does not make such power dependent upon relationship. The order of the court appointing the nominated guardian constitutes an approval of her selection, and [248]*248makes the order valid under the statute unless it is made to appear that the court below abused its discretion in such approval. No attempt is made to show this.

The order is affirmed.,

Sloss, J., and Lawlor, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 Cal. 247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meiklejohn-v-meiklejohn-cal-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack