
    *Benjamin Ficklin v. George Ficklin.
    Guardians — Appointment — Jurisdiction. — The appointment of a guardian hy election of the infant, after he arrives to the agre of fourteen, is made on the Chancery side of the County Court, and, therefore, no writ of Error lies hy a Superior Court of Law, to re-view the proceeding's on such election and appointment.
    At the Comity Court of Culpeper, held on the ISth July, 1816; Fielding- Ficklin, the orphan son of Fielding Ficklin, dec’d came into Court, and made choice of Benjamin Ficklin, (the present Plain tiff in Error,) as his guardian, who thereupon entered into bond, with security, in the penalty of $5000, and qualified as guardian'. On the 15th February, 1819, the same orphan came into the same Court, and made choice of George Ficklin, (the Defendant,) as his guardian, who thereupon entered into bond, with security, in the penalty of $8000, and qualified as guardian.
    At the Superior Court of law for the same county, at its September Term, 1819, on the motion of the Plaintiff, a Writ of Error at Common Daw was awarded him to the order of the 15th February, above mentioned. At the April Term, 1820, of the Superior Court, the parties appeared, and it was admitted that the said orphan was upwards of 14 years of age at the time that he elected Benjamin Ficklin as his guardian, and, consequently, still older when he chose George Ficklin. The Court then adjourned to this Court, the following questions :
    “ 1. Was the Writ of Error at Common Daw, the legal remedy to bring up this record, and examine its errors, if any existed ?
    “2. Is the appointment of a guardian by election of the infant, after he arrives at the age of fourteen, made on the Chancery, or Common Law side of the County Court ?
    “3. Has this Court jurisdiction over this record ?
    “4. If it has, ought the sentence of the County Court to be reversed, because Benjamin Ficklin was not summoned to shew cause why he should not be removed, and another appointed in his place ?”
    
      
      The principal case is cited in Durrett v. Davis, 24 Gratt. 314. See monographic note on “Guardian and ward” appended to Barnum v. Frost, 17 Gratt. 398.
    
   PER CURIAM.

The Court is unanimously of opinion, that the Superior Court of Law for Culpeper, has no jurisdiction *in this Case, the decision of the County Court being on the Chancery, and not on the Common Law side of the said Court.”

Note (in edition of 1853). — See the Act of Assembly, 1 Rev. Code of 1819, ch. 108, § 4, by which, the Superior Courts of Chancery and County and Corporation Courts, in Chancery, are vested with the power of controlling guardians, hearing and determining all matters between them and their wards, requiring security from guardians in socage, displacing faithless guardians, and appointing others in their stead, and giving such directions, and making such rules and orders for the government, maintenance, and education of wards, and for the preservation of their estates and for the conduct of their guardians, as may be proper. It would seem, then, that as the Courts of Chancery have such controlling power, they are the proper Tribunals before whom the election by an infant of his guardian should be made, although Hargrave tells us, that such election is frequently made before a Judge on the Circuit. In this State, the Superior Courts of Law have uniformly refused to appoint guardians, (except ad litem,) and to receive the election of infants. See Hargrave’s Notes (on the doctrine of Guardians and Wards,) on Coke Litt. 88, b. Notes 65 to 70, inclusive; 1 Black. Com. 460-4, and Tucker’s Note, 5.  