History
  • No items yet
midpage
Hathaway v. Clark
22 Mass. 490
| Mass. | 1827
|
Check Treatment
Morton J.

delivered the opinion of the Court. As the records apparently are entire and no loss of any of the papers in the probate office is suggested, we cannot, even after the lapse of more than thirty years, presume that any decree passed, or that any notice was given, which does not appear.

Notice to the person to be affected by the inquisition of the selectmen, and especially by the adjudication of the Probate Court, is essential to the validity of the proceedings of that court.1 Any judgment or decree that a person is non compos, or appointing a guardian for that cause, without notice, is absolutely void. Chase v. Hathaway, 14 Mass. R. 222. The guardianship for the above reasons being held to be void, .he plaintiff in error has failed to prove the error assigned, and the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas must be affirmed.

See Revised Stat. c. 79, § 9.

Case Details

Case Name: Hathaway v. Clark
Court Name: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Date Published: Oct 15, 1827
Citation: 22 Mass. 490
Court Abbreviation: Mass.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.