Criminal Law · MBE-tested
WILLIAM H. BRODRIBB, an Insane Person, by H. Goodall, his Guardian, Respondent, v. LUTHER C. TIBBITS et al., Appellants
63 Cal. 80·Supreme Court of California·1883·CA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
[Department Two.
January 26, 1883.]
WILLIAM H. BRODRIBB, an Insane Person, by H. Goodall, his Guardian, Respondent, v. LUTHER C. TIBBITS et al., Appellants.
Evidence — Order of Probate Court—Presumption. —An order of the late probate of the county of San Bernardino, removing a former guardian and appointing his successor was given in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff Its admission was objected to on the ground that no notice or citation had been served on the former guardian to show cause why he should not bo removed, but it did not appear from the transcript that there was any foundation for the objection in point of fact. Held, that in the absence of a showing to tlie contrary, the court must be presumed to have acted correctly.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the county of San Bernardino, and from an order refusing a new trial.
Luther C. Tibbets, for Appellants.
Paris & Bledsoe, for Respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
There are many points attempted to be presented and allegations of error made in the transcript before us, the relevancy or materiality of which are not apparent to us.
We see but one point ivhich we deem worthy of notice, and that is iu reference to the removal of the former guardian.
On the trial the defendants objected to the admissibility in the evidence of the order of removal, and the appointment of a successor, on the ground that no notice or citation had been served on the former guardian to show cause why he should not be removed. The orders of the court were received in evidence, but are not brought before us; therefore there is nothing in the transcript, except the statement in the objection, showing that he was not served; and in such case we may presume that the action of the court was correct and well founded. The proceedings of the late Probate Court are to be construed in the samé manner as the proceedings of courts of general jurisdiction. (§ 98, Code Civ. Proc., before amendments of 1880.)
Judgment and order affirmed.