McCloskey v. Sweeney

Decided October 28, 1884

California Supreme Court · decided 1884-10-28

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial.</p> <p>The facts appear in the opinion of the court.</p>

Relies on Johnston v. San Francisco Savings Union

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1884-10-28

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 1952

4 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

McKinstry, J.

¶1In 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.)

¶2Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.

¶3Ross, J., and McKee, J., concurred.