Martin

Martin v. White

Good Law
146 F. 461·2 Alaska Fed. 586·76 C.C.A. 671·1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4118
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 20, 1906No. 1,292California2,070 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hawley, J.

(after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court).

Under the foregoing state of facts, did the commissioner have any jurisdiction to make an order appointing Badger guardian of said White? Did the court have any jurisdiction to hear and determine the case? The jurisdiction of the commissioner as ex officio probate judge to appoint guardians for insane and incompetent persons is derived from the statute, and in order to obtain such jurisdiction it must affirmatively appear that the essential provisions of the statute were complied with. The court below upon the trial of this action proceeded on the ground that the statutes had been complied with in all essential particulars, and that the judgment of the commissioner adjudging White to be insane and appointing Badger as his guardian is conclusive, and cannot be collaterally attacked. *592 That-the commissioner had jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the petition of Long is unquestioned. Did he have jurisdiction over the person of White or his property? It is manifest that section 723 of the Alaska Code refers only to the regulation of proceedings had in the courts after jurisdiction has been regularly…

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.