
    In the Matter of the Guardianship of George M. O’Connell, a Minor.
    Appointment of Guardian: discretion of court. As between an unmarried woman whose employment as school teacher was not permanent, and her married sister, who already had the custody of their eight years old nephew, and was able and willing to care for him as one of her own children, the court properly selected the latter as guardian.
    Same. Where testatrix’s eight years old son had a good home with his married aunt, who was able and willing to care for him, her appointment as guardian in preference to persons who were not relatives was not a clear abuse of discretion, though testatrix requested the appointment of the latter in her will,.and orally expressed such desire shortly before her death, and though the fitness of such persons is not questioned.
    
      Appeal from Linn District Court. — Hon. William P. Wole, Judge.
    Friday, May 21, 1897.
    Ellen O’Connell, surviving parent, died-January 4, 1895, leaving an only child, George M. O’Connell, eight years old. She left a will, to which was attached, by way of a codicil, this request: “I wish it to be understood by the court that it is my desire to have the executors of my last will and testament, Hr. A. H. Johnson and Dr. G. R. Skinner, to be appointed guardian of my son, Geo. M. O’Connell, until he become of age.” Application was made for the appointment of Theresa O’Connell, a sister of deceased, as guardian of the child; also for that of Drs. Skinner and Johnson, and of Anna M. Donahue, another sister. After hearing, the court appointed the latter permanent guardian. Theresa O’Connell and Drs. Skinner and Johnson appeal. —
    Affirmed.
    
      
      Bickel & Crocker for appellants Skinner and Johnson, . '
    
      Preston, Wheeler & MoMt for appellant Theresa O’Connell.
    
      Bothrock & Grimm for appellee Anna M. Donahue..
   Ladd, J.

The appeal of Theresa O’Connell may be first considered. The evidence shows that she is unmarried, and her occupation that of a school teacher. She was always on good terms with the child and its mother, but has no affection for him other than that of a near relation. Her employment is not permanent, and existing conditions may reasonably be expected to change. On the other hand, Mrs. Donahue is a married woman, now has custody of the child, treats him as one of her own children, is able to care for him, and wishes to do so. True, she had at one time some dispute with her deceased sister, but not of such a character as would interfere with the proper nurture and training of this son. Under the circumstances, we think the court rightly permitted the minor to remain with Mrs. Donahue.

II. A more difficult question is presented by the appeal of Drs. Skinner and Johnson. The mother requested in her last will that they be guardian of her son and orally expressed her desire to the same effect, shortly before her death. Testamentary guardianship is not authorized in this state, In re Johnson, 87 Iowa, 130 (54 N. W. Rep. 69); but the expressed wish of the parent, and especially when made shortly before dissolution, will influence the court, and other things being equal, will determine the appointment. 9 Am. and Eng. Enc. Law, 93, and notes. No question concerning the fitness of either Dr. Skinner or Dr. Johnson is raised, and they are willing to act as guardian without compensation. They are not related to the child, however, and undertake the trust largely because of the dying request of the mother. What disposition would be made of the child by them. does not appear. What has already been said of Mrs. Donahue’s care of the child need not be repeated. He has a good home with her, is contented, and well provided for. She is his aunt, and has a natural interest in his welfare. The dispute with the child’s mother, heretofore referred to, was occasioned by the claim that the conveyance of forty acres of land by her father to her brother was in the nature of an absolute gift, and not by way of an advancement. The evidence that she referred to her sister in opprobrious terms is indignantly denied. Her property interests and those of the child are not in conflict. Were this case triable de novo, however, we should feel bound to regard the dying request of the mother. It is prosecuted by ordinary proceedings, and “the findings of the court are entitled to the effect of a verdict, as all the reasons for the rule as to verdicts apply with at least equal force to the findings of the court.” Lawrence v. Thomas, 84 Iowa, 362 (51 N. W. Rep. 11). The selection of a guardian is, of necessity, largely within the discretion of the court appointing, and it is only when there is a clear abuse of discretion that this court will interfere. In re Johnson, supra. The welfare of the boy is of controlling importance, and we cannot say from the record before us that the district court so abused its discretion as to justify interference with its decision. — Affirmed.  