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 *727therefor, so that she may know the nature of the ease 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.
Ziba O. Slocum, Fdwin P. Me Guinness John Poran, for appellant.
Charles A. Wilson cf- Thomas A. Jenclces,'for appellee.
February 21, 1890.
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, bis 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.