Holman v. Holman
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions by the defendants. An appeal by plaintiff from the decision of the judge of probate, refusing to grant his motion to dismiss the petition of William O. Holman and David M. Holman, that the plaintiff be placed under guardianship.
Read the full summary
On exceptions by the defendants. An appeal by plaintiff from the decision of the judge of probate, refusing to grant his motion to dismiss the petition of William O. Holman and David M. Holman, that the plaintiff be placed under guardianship. The facts are stated in the opinion. cited: Penobscot R. R. Co. v. Weeks, 52 Maine, 456; R. S., c. 67, § 6; Chase v. Hathaway, 14 Mass. 222 ; Hathaway v. Clark, 5 Pick. 490 ; Wait v. Maxwell, 5 Pick. 217; Allis v. Morton, 4 Gray, 63; Conkey v. Kingman, 24 Pick. 115; Hovey v. Harmon, 49 Maine, 260; II. v. 8. 4 N. H. 60; Kimball v. Fisk, 39 N. II. 110. We…
1Opinion of the CourtWalton, J.
It is the opinion of the court that the defendant should have had notice of the inquisition by the selectmen. It is true that there is no express statute provision requiring such notice. But it is a well settled rule of the common law that when an adjudication is to be made wdiich wiil seriously affect *142the rights of a person, he should be notified and have an opportunity to be heard. Necessity creates some exceptions to the rule. But no such necessity exists in the class of cases of which we are now speaking. The allegations against the defendant were that, he was of unsound mind; that by…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Chase v. HathawayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1817
3Cited by14 opinions
- In re AllenSupreme Court of Vermont · 1909
- McCormick v. BlaineIllinois Supreme Court · 1931
- In Re WretlindSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
- Supreme Council of the Royal Arcanum v. NicholsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1906
- In Re Will of EdwardsSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1965
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.