Russell v. Russell
| Decision Date | 07 January 1958 |
| Citation | 336 Mass. 762,147 N.E.2d 154 |
| Parties | Lawrence B. RUSSELL et al. v. Robert D. RUSSELL (and a companion case). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Daniel G. Rollins, Brookline (Edward M. Rowe with him), for respondent.
Russell J. Coffin, Boston, for petitioners.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and RONAN, SPALDING, WHITTEMORE and COUNIHAN, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
These are two appeals by the respondent from two decrees entered in the Probate Court, one appointing a guardian under G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 201, § 6, as appearing in St.1956, c. 314, § 2, and a second denying a petition to appoint a conservator under G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 201, § 16, as appearing in St.1945, c. 728, § 2. The ward, fifty-two years of age, has been a voluntary patient at the McLean Hospital, an institution for the treatment of the insane, since he arrived there at three o'clock on the morning of June 2, 1956. He had been previously hospitalized in mental institutions. He is suffering from delusions and from a mental illness which has been diagnosed as 'Schizophrenia Reaction--Type Undifferentiated,' and needs continued medication and psychiatric treatment for at least one more year at the hospital. The judge was not plainly wrong in finding that the ward 'is so mentally ill that he cannot handle his own affairs and he needs not only a guardian of his property but also a guardian of his person.' Bashaw v. Willett, 327 Mass. 369, 99 N.E.2d 42. Willett v. Willett, 333 Mass. 323, 130 N.E.2d 582. The appointment of a guardian was appropriate and obviated the necessity of the appointment of a conservator. There was no error in the admission of a writing signed by the respondent consenting to the appointment of a guardian. There was a question in the mind of the physician who attended the respondent as to his competency to sign. Counsel appearing in behalf of the respondent could have requested the judge to admit the evidence only de bene depending upon what the rest of the evidence would show as to Russell's mentality before making a final ruling on the admission of the paper. An inference could be drawn that one who understandingly subscribes to the appointment of a guardian is not so lacking in mentality as to require such an appointment--a position not prejudicial to that taken by the objecting counsel.
Decree affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guardianship of Roe, Matter of
...that the ward (1) is incapable of taking care of himself, (2) by reason of mental illness. G.L. c. 201, § 6. See Russell v. Russell, 336 Mass. 762, 763, 147 N.E.2d 154 (1958); Willett v. Willett, 333 Mass. 323, 330, 130 N.E.2d 582 (1955); Bashaw v. Willett, 327 Mass. 369, 370, 99 N.E.2d 42 ......
-
Fazio v. Fazio
...369, 370-371, 99 N.E.2d 42 (1951). See also Cogan v. Cogan, 202 Mass. 58, 60, 88 N.E. 662 (1909). However, in Russell v. Russell, 336 Mass. 762, 763, 147 N.E.2d 154, 155 (1958), we upheld the appointment of a guardian under G.L. c. 201, § 6, on a finding that a ward was "so mentally ill tha......
-
Doe v. Doe
...without prior court approval. See Denny v. Tyler, 3 Allen 225, 227 (1861); Allis v. Morton, 4 Gray 63 (1855). Cf. Russell v. Russell, 336 Mass. 762, 763, 147 N.E.2d 154 (1958) (appointment based on need for continued psychiatric treatment at hospital). Commitment by the guardian of a mental......
-
Guardianship of Bassett
...traditional, equitable power of a Probate Court, Buckingham v. Alden, 315 Mass. 383, 387, 53 N.E.2d 101 (1944), Russell v. Russell, 336 Mass. 762, 763, 147 N.E.2d 154 (1958), and has been confirmed as belonging to that court by statute. G.L. c. More recently, by St.1974, c. 845, § 4, insert......