Knickerbacker v. De Freest
New York Court of Chancery
This was an application on the part of the complainant to appoint a guardian for an infant defendant. The infant had neglected to appear, for twenty days after the time for appearingas prescribed in the 22d rule had expired; and a petition was thereupon presented to the court agreeably to the last section of the 144th rule, requesting that a particular person named in such petition should be appointed guardian.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The court never selects a guardian ad litem for an infant defendant on the nomination of the adverse party. It is frequently necessary for the guardian seriously to contest the complainant’s claim. It is his duty in every case to ascertain from the infant and his friends, or from other proper sources of information, what are the legal and equitable rights of his ward. And if a special answer is necessary, or advisable, for the purpose of bringing the rights of the infant properly before the court, it is his duty to put in such an answer. If the infant is a mere nominal party,…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Brick's EstateNew York Surrogate's Court · 1862
- Rhoads v. RhoadsIllinois Supreme Court · 1867
- Bryant v. LivermoreSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1874
- Ralston v. LaheeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1859
- Groce v. FieldSupreme Court of Georgia · 1853
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.