King

King v. Wilson

Good Law
116 Cal. App. 191·1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 320·2 P.2d 833
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 19, 1931Docket No. 452.California1,509 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Allen, J.

The first of these two actions grew out of the ordinary automobile accident in which the plaintiff Rosebelle King, a minor, was severely injured and was awarded judgment against both defendants. In the second case the plaintiff Lueile H. King, the mother of Rosebelle King, recovered judgment against both defendants for medical and hospital expenses. The two cases were by stipulation of all parties consolidated and tried together. Prom these judgments defendant Ralph Wilson urges this appeal, the defendant Roy Downs not appealing.

The first error assigned by appellant is that at the time of the trial he was under the age of twenty-one years and that no guardian ad litem, was appointed in said action in his behalf. The minority of defendant Wilson was not brought to the attention of the court until the hearing of a motion for new trial. The record in this ease discloses that the defendant was past twenty years of age at the time of the trial and had no guardian ad litem appointed as provided by the code.

The first question which naturally arises is, does such failure to have a guardian ad litem appointed go to the jurisdiction of the court? This question was presented in the case…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.