McCloskey v. Sweeney

California Supreme Court

McCloskey v. Sweeney

4 P. 943, 66 Cal. 53, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 681

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 28, 1884

DocketNo. 8,483

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 4 P. 943 (McCloskey v. Sweeney) 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

McCloskey v. Sweeney, 4 P. 943, 66 Cal. 53, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 681 (Cal. 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

McKinstry, 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.

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

McKinstry, 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 P. 943, 66 Cal. 53, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccloskey-v-sweeney-cal-1884.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack