Grinbaum v. Superior Court of California

We have this day rendered decisions holding that the guardian of the person and the guardian of the estate of Julie Grinbaum were appointed by void orders. We have, also, held that by reason of these decisions it is unnecessary to pass upon the qualifications of the judge to try the proceedings for restoration to capacity because the respective proceedings for the appointment of the respective guardians of the person and estate were void and that the proceedings for restoration to capacity based upon the validity of such orders of appointment must fall with the orders appointing the respective guardians. [1] For the same reason it is unnecessary to issue amandamus to compel the respondent judge to make an order for the taking of the depositions of certain individuals to be used upon the trial of the pending application of Julie Grinbaum for restoraton to capacity.

Petition dismissed.

Lawlor, J., Lennon, J., Kerrigan, J., Waste, J., and Myers, J., concurred. *Page 784

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE IS BLANK.] *Page 785

In Memoriam. TO THE MEMORY OF CRARLES STETSON WHEELER.Memorial Presented to the Supreme Court, in Open Court, at Its Courtroom in the New State Building, Civic Center, San Francisco, Monday, December 17, 1923, at 12:00 o'clock, Noon, and Ordered Inscribed in Full upon the Minutes of the Court by Chief Justice Wilbur.

MR. JOHN L. McNAB, for the Committee:

May It Please the Court: We appear this morning to lay before the highest tribunal of the State a simple tribute to the life and work of one of the noblest advocates who ever graced its sessions.

Through us, who constitute this committee of the San Francisco Bar Association, the legal profession pays its homage to the character, the life and the genius of Charles Stetson Wheeler.

He was born in Fruitvale, Alameda County, California, on the eleventh day of December, 1863. He was educated in the public schools and was graduated from the University of California in 1884. A young man of fine physique, trained and disciplined by the University, he entered with high ambition and prodigious energy upon his legal studies. Within less than two years he was admitted to practice by the Court, and almost immediately became associated with the leading causes at the Bar and continued so until the end of his life.

He died on the twenty-seventh day of April, 1923, in the fifty-ninth year of his age, in this city that he loved and served, and in which his greatest triumphs and struggles were recorded.