When the Probate Code was enacted that provision was excluded. The judge in his written opinion quoted from In re Guardianship of Hann, 100 Cal.App., 743, 281 P. 74, 75, where this court said: 'The court was not bound to appoint a guardian simply because the minor nominated one. Newton v. Janvrin, 62 N.H. 440.

This was a matter for the determination of the trial court. As was said in Guardianship of Hann, 100 Cal.App. 743, at page 746 [ 281 P. 74], where the court denied the petition of a 16-year-old minor: "It is provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, section 1747 (now Prob. Code, § 1405), that the court may appoint a guardian for a minor `when it appears necessary or convenient.' The court was not bound to appoint a guardian simply because the minor nominated one.

(Cf. Steinberg v. Jacobs, 21 Cal.App. 765, 766 [ 132 P. 1060]; Sharpe v. Sharpe, 55 Cal.App.2d 262, 265 [ 130 P.2d 462]; In re Hann, 100 Cal.App. 743, 745 [ 281 P. 74]; Levy v. Levi, 186 Cal.App.2d 21, 22 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 639]; Agnew v. Parks, 219 Cal.App.2d 696, 703 [ 33 Cal.Rptr. 465].)

Each of the foregoing facts established the necessity for or convenience of the appointment of respondent. In support of her contention that neither convenience nor necessity was established, appellant cites Guardianship of Hann, 100 Cal.App. 743 [ 281 P. 74]. No light from that case is available for the benefit of appellant.

No appeal lies from such order and the appeal therefrom is dismissed. ( Burk v. Extrafine Bread Bakery, 208 Cal. 105 [ 280 P. 522]; In re Hann, 100 Cal.App. 743 [ 281 P. 74].) The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

No appeal lies from such an order. ( Burk v. Extrafine Bread Bakery, 208 Cal. 105 [ 280 P. 522]; In re Hann, 100 Cal.App. 743 [ 281 P. 74].) The appeal from said order is dismissed.