Fetterley v. Osborne

California Supreme Court

Fetterley v. Osborne

268 P. 643, 204 Cal. 384, 1928 Cal. LEXIS 689

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJune 19, 1928

DocketDocket No. L.A. 9107.

StatusPublished

This text of 268 P. 643 (Fetterley v. Osborne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fetterley v. Osborne, 268 P. 643, 204 Cal. 384, 1928 Cal. LEXIS 689 (Cal. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

TYLER, J., pro tem.

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing the action after an order sustaining a demurrer to a second amended complaint without leave to amend. The plaintiff appears in propria persona and he attempts to state a cause of action for damages for illegal restraint and also to recover certain sums which he claims were unlawfully ' expended on his behalf by defendant while acting as the guardian of his estate. The complaint indicates that plaintiff had been adjudged insane by the superior court of the county of Los Angeles and it recites that on December 19, 1923, he was adjudged sane and competent and fully restored to all his rights as a competent person. It alleges the appointment, in May, 1922, of defendant, as guardian of plaintiff’s estate and it charges the unlawful and useless expenditure by defendant, as such guardian, of certain sums for clothing and other expenses for the benefit of plaintiff. A further allegation recites that plaintiff ran away from the Southern California State Hospital, where he was incarcerated, and defendant caused him to be returned to that institution without sufficient reason. It is then charged that by reason of the acts of defendant plaintiff was wrongfully deprived of In's liberty, friends, and social surroundings and damages are alleged in the sum of $15,000. It is here claimed that the court below erred in sustaining the demurrer to the complaint as it was filed too late and judgment should have been rendered in favor of plaintiff upon a default. There is nothing in the record before us that sustains appellant in this contention. As against his unsupported statement it will be presumed that the court rightfully exercised its jurisdiction. That the complaint does not state a cause of action is plainly manifest.

Judgment affirmed.

Richards, J., and Shenk, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

TYLER, J., pro tem.

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing the action after an order sustaining a demurrer to a second amended complaint without leave to amend. The plaintiff appears in propria persona and he attempts to state a cause of action for damages for illegal restraint and also to recover certain sums which he claims were unlawfully ' expended on his behalf by defendant while acting as the guardian of his estate. The complaint indicates that plaintiff had been adjudged insane by the superior court of the county of Los Angeles and it recites that on December 19, 1923, he was adjudged sane and competent and fully restored to all his rights as a competent person. It alleges the appointment, in May, 1922, of defendant, as guardian of plaintiff’s estate and it charges the unlawful and useless expenditure by defendant, as such guardian, of certain sums for clothing and other expenses for the benefit of plaintiff. A further allegation recites that plaintiff ran away from the Southern California State Hospital, where he was incarcerated, and defendant caused him to be returned to that institution without sufficient reason. It is then charged that by reason of the acts of defendant plaintiff was wrongfully deprived of In's liberty, friends, and social surroundings and damages are alleged in the sum of $15,000. It is here claimed that the court below erred in sustaining the demurrer to the complaint as it was filed too late and judgment should have been rendered in favor of plaintiff upon a default. There is nothing in the record before us that sustains appellant in this contention. As against his unsupported statement it will be presumed that the court rightfully exercised its jurisdiction. That the complaint does not state a cause of action is plainly manifest.

Judgment affirmed.

Richards, J., and Shenk, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 P. 643, 204 Cal. 384, 1928 Cal. LEXIS 689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fetterley-v-osborne-cal-1928.