Court Opinion

ID: 4730151
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-08-12 02:55:06.201148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:08:00.537847
License: Public Domain

Rudkin, C. J.
(dissenting) — I agree with the majority that our superior courts have jurisdiction to appoint guard*549ians for nonresident insane persons who have property in this state, but do not think that such jurisdiction should be exercised under the facts disclosed by this record. The person for whom a guardian has been appointed mysteriously disappeared more than a year and a half ago, and diligent search and inquiry throughout the entire Pacific Coast has failed to discover either him or his whereabouts. Under such circumstances, when we consider the state of his mind and the state of his health, the presumption of death is far stronger than the presumption of continued insanity. If dead, the order appointing the guardian is a nullity (Scott v. McNeal, 154 U. S. 34), and will afford no protection to third persons dealing with the alleged guardian. The court below has commissioned a nonresident of this state to demand and receive money from citizens of this state, when payment to the person thus commissioned will, in all human probability, constitute no acquittance of the debt. For this reason I dissent.