Paty

Paty v. Smith

Good Law
1 Cal. Unrep. 830
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 20, 1874No. 2941California526 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McKinstry, J.

— Respondent asked for a rehearing on the ground that the act of the legislature, which purports to authorize a sale of the property of the plaintiff — then a minor — and the proceedings under it, transferred his title in the demanded premises to the grantor of the defendant. It is highly probable that the jurisdiction of the chancellor over *831 the persons and property of infants had its foundation in the prerogative of the crown, flowing from the general duty of the king — as parens patriae — to protect those who had no other lawful protector. The prerogative was exercised in the court of chancery, because it partook more of a judicial administration of rights and duties in foro conscientiae, than a strict executive authority: 2 Story’s Equity, 1333, 1334. In the United States the appointment of guardians and their supervision seems always to have been regarded as a judicial power, and has generally been confided to judicial officers. Under our system in California the general law confers the jurisdiction on the probate courts.

■Special laws providing for the sale by the guardian (of the person or property) of the real estate of the infant have been upheld by the courts of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.