Goodson v. . Lehmon

BaeNhill, J. G. S., chapter 35, defines four several classes of persons for whom a guardian may be appointed but it creates one cause and one cause only for such appointment. That cause is mental incapacity or want of understanding. In re Worsley, 212 N. C., 320, 193 S. E., 666; In re Anderson, 132 N. C., 243. While the statute, G. S., 35-2, recognizes that mental deterioration or disintegration may, and sometimes does, follow as a result of old age, physical infirmities and disease, it does not make physical incapacity *618 alone, however complete, grounds for the appointment of a trustee or guardian. The court is authorized to step in and delegate the power to manage the property of another only when that person has lost his mental capacity to do so in his own behalf. The verdict and judgment in the inquisition proceedings relied on by plaintiffs contain no suggestion of mental incapacity or want of understanding. The jury found and the court adjudged that, “due to old age and other physical infirmities,” Mrs. Goodson was incapable of looking after or managing her own affairs — and nothing more. This verdict and judgment constitute no evidence, conclusive or otherwise, of the mental incapacity of the deceased at the time she executed the deed in controversy. The motion for the appointment of a receiver was made by Mrs. Goodson and was based on the allegation that one of plaintiffs had wrongfully acquired possession of her property. It has no bearing on the question here presented. The inquisition proceedings together with the accompanying motion for the appointment of a receiver was all the evidence offered by plaintiffs. Hence, the defendants were entitled to have the cause dismissed as of nonsuit as they in apt time requested. The plaintiffs cite and rely on Sutton v. Sutton, 222 N. C., 274, 22 S. E. (2d), 553. That case is clearly distinguishable. There the respondent in the inquisition proceedings was adjudged “incompetent from want of understanding.” Here it was not so found or adjudged. For the reasons stated the judgment below is Reversed.