Meadors v. Walden

Decision Date20 March 1922
Docket Number12900.
Citation111 S.E. 227,28 Ga.App. 409
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Syllabus by the Court.

Only the ordinaries of the several counties of this state have power to appoint guardians for insane persons. Civ. Code 1910, § 3089.

The defendant in error made an application to the ordinary of the county of his residence for appointment as guardian for his wife, who had been adjudged insane. The plaintiff in error filed a caveat on the ground that the husband was an unfit person for the guardianship, and on the additional ground that the wife had, prior to the time when she had been adjudged insane, executed an instrument in writing in the nature of a power of attorney to the plaintiff in error, which instrument was to become effective if there should be any attempt by the relatives of the wife to declare her insane, or any adjudication on the part of the courts that she was insane, or upon the happening of certain other contingencies of a similar nature therein mentioned. The judgment of the court of ordinary was in favor of the husband, and the plaintiff in error appealed to the superior court. The case was submitted to a jury, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the husband. The caveator filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled. There was evidence submitted to the jury that at the time of the signing of the above-mentioned instrument the wife was insane on the subject-matter of the instrument, and ample evidence that the husband was a fit and proper person to be appointed guardian. The trial court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Error from Superior Court, Henry County; W. E. H. Searcy, Jr., Judge.

Proceeding by J. C. Walden for appointment as guardian of his insane wife, in which I. W. Meadors filed a caveat. Judgment for the petitioner and the caveator brings error. Affirmed.

King & Johnson, of Covington, for plaintiff in error.

Reagan & Reagan, and E. M. Smith, all of McDonough, for defendant in error.


Judgment affirmed.

JENKINS, P.J., and STEPHENS, J., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT