In Re Coburn

In the month of February, 1908, a petition was filed by Azro A. Coburn, a resident of Massachusetts, to have Loren Coburn, his aged uncle, who resides in San Mateo county, adjudged incompetent, and to have a guardian appointed of his person and estate. The petition as amended alleges that the said Loren Coburn, by reason of old age, physical disability and weakness of mind, is unable to take care of himself and manage his property. This allegation was denied, and upon the issue so made the case went to trial before the court without a jury. At the conclusion of the trial the court made an order adjudging Loren Coburn incompetent and unable to take care of himself and manage his affairs, and appointing Carl J. Coburn, another nephew, guardian of his person and estate. This appeal is from the order so made and from an order denying appellant's motion for a new trial. It is contended that the evidence is insufficient to support the order; and in view of the conclusion we have reached that is the principal question that will be discussed. It is provided in the code (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1763) that when it is represented to the court upon a verified petition *Page 606 "that any person…

I concur in the judgment, but am unable to agree with what is said in the opinion of the presiding justice as to the insufficiency of the evidence to support the finding that appellant "is incapable of taking care of himself and managing his property." The evidence upon this point is not as satisfactory as it might be, and if the members of this court were sitting as trial judges, it is quite possible, or even probable, that we would not have come to the same conclusion as to the ultimate facts as that arrived at by the trial court. But this is not the test applied in this court upon an appeal. If the findings attacked are supported by any substantial evidence, the findings of the trial court are conclusive upon this court. I agree with what the presiding justice has said in regard to the action of the trial court in allowing witnesses to give their opinions as to whether or not appellant had the ability to manage his property. By this testimony witnesses were *Page 622 allowed in effect to give their opinions upon the general merits of the case and as to the question directly in issue. This may not be done. ( Wilson v. Reedy, 33 Minn. 503 , [ 24 N.W. 191 ]; McDonald v. State, 128…