In a petition to a probate court for the appointment of a guardian, the reason for the appointment should be set forth. In a petition for the appointment of a guardian to a person of full age, the intended ward is the only person entitled to notice. Hence the wife of such person cannot appeal from the decree of the probate court appointing a guardian, she not being a party to the proceeding. Only a party to a proceeding can be deemed "aggrieved" by a judgment rendered in it.
PER CURIAM.
The court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to have the ground on which the appointment of a guardian is asked set forth in the application therefor, so that she may know the nature of the case which she will have to meet, and that, therefore, the application must be amended so as to set forth the same, or else be dismissed.
This decision rests on the assumption that the appellant had the right to take the appeal, but see Hamilton v. Court of Probate of North Providence, 9 R.I. 204.
PER CURIAM.
We think the appeal cannot be sustained consistently with Hamilton v. Court of Probate of North Providence, 9 R.I. 204. In that case the court held that, in a proceeding like this, the intended ward, being a person of full age, is the only person entitled to notice, his wife or children not being interested parties. The rule is, that only parties can appeal. Our attention is drawn to the language of the statute giving appeals in probate proceedings, Pub. Stat. R.I. cap. 181, § 1. The language is, "any person aggrieved by any order, determination, or decree of any court of probate may . . . appeal therefrom." The contention is, that to entitle a person to appeal it is not necessary that he should be a party, but that it is enough that he is aggrieved. We think, however, that in contemplation of law, a person cannot be deemed to be aggrieved by a judgment in a proceeding in which he is not interested. Veazie Bank v. Young, 53 Me. 555; Labar v. Nichols, 23 Mich. 310. This appeal should be dismissed as not lawfully taken.