77 Wash. 36 | Wash. | 1913
The evidence introduced at the hearing was brief, but brief as it is, it does not require a special review. Enough appears to show that there had been a probable misappropriation of the insane person's estate, and that it was not likely that the property misappropriated would be returned if the contestant was appointed guardian. Conceding that, under normal conditions, a brother has a preference right, over a person not so related, to be appointed guardian of his insane brother's estate, we find in the appointment here made no abuse of discretion on the part of the court.
The order appealed from is affirmed.
*444CHOW, C. J., MOUNT, MORRIS, and PARKER, JJ., concur.