Legal Opinion
McCloskey v. Sweeney
California Supreme Court
Decided October 28, 1884No. 8,483PublishedCited by 5 opinions
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts appear in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcKinstry, J.
In the action J ames McCloskey, Margaret Sweeney, Mary Sweeney and James Sweeney, the defendant last named—an infant over the age of fourteen years—was not served with process. The infant was not authorized to nominate an attorney. Nor does the court have power to appoint a guardian ad litem to appear for the infant until after summons has been served on the infant. (C. C. P. § 373 ; Johnston v. S. F. S. Union, 63 Cal. 554.)
Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.
Ross, J., and McKee, J., concurred.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Johnston v. San Francisco Savings UnionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
3Cited by5 opinions
- Akley v. BassettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Weisfeld v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Redmond v. PetersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Brewer v. BrewerCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1933
- Phelps v. HeatonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900