Case ID: nj-eq_20/html/0461-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Ordinary.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Abraham O. Zabriskie, Esq., Ordinary.
    Rorback and others, appellants, and Van Blarcom, guardian of Mary Dorsheimer, respondent.
    A mere stranger to an alleged idiot, with no allegation of relationship to her, or present or prospective interest in her property, cannot appeal from an order appointing her guardian.
    This was an appeal from an order of the Orphans Court of Sussex county, appointing Lewis Van Blarcom guardian of Mary Dorsheimer, an idiot, residing in the province of Ontario, in Canada. The appointment was made under the fifth section of the act concerning idiots and lunatics, upon a record of the finding of the idiocy of Mary Dorsheimer, by the Court of Chancery of the province of Ontario, certified under the seal of the court and the hand of the registrar, verified by a certificate of the governor-general of Canada, under his official seal.
    
      
      Mr. McCarter, for appellants.
    
      Mr. Linn, for respondent.
   The Ordinary.

In general, no person is entitled to an appeal unless a party to the suit, or interested in the subject matter. And the constitution of the state, which is the only foundation for this appeal, says all persons aggrieved, by any order, sentence, or decree of the Orphans Court, may appeal from the same. A stranger to the matter could not appeal. This is-not a suit inter partes, but a proceeding in rem, strictly so called. • The matter is the guardianship of the alleged idiot. It is difficult to perceive how any one can have an interest in it besides herself. Any proper person, such as a near relative, or one who has an interest in her estate as her presumptive heir or next of kin, would he' allowed to intervene on her behalf before the Orphans Court, or on appeal in her name, as her next friend; but surely a mere stranger, with no allegation of relationship to her, or present or prospective interest in her property, can be entitled to an appeal as a person aggrieved by the decree.

It nowhere appears, by proof or allegation, that the appellants have any interest in the matter, or are in any way-related to the idiot.

The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed.