Rutland v. Sikes
| Decision Date | 06 April 1962 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 7573. |
| Citation | 203 F. Supp. 276 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
| Parties | Thomas C. RUTLAND, as Administrator of the Estate of Glenn Rubin Rutland, deceased, Plaintiff, v. W. R. SIKES, Sr., and W. R. Sikes, Jr., Defendants. |
Marshall B. Williams, W. T. Klapman, L. M. Fanning, Orangeburg, S. C., for plaintiff.
F. R. Gressette, St. Matthews, S. C., William H. Duncan, West Columbia, S. C., and J. Reese Daniel, Columbia, S. C., for defendants.
This case is before me upon motion of the defendants W. R. Sikes, Sr. and W. R. Sikes, Jr. for a new trial on the ground that "one of the defendants is a minor, and that no Guardian ad Litem was appointed to represent the interest of said minor in accordance with Rule 17(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for United States District Courts".
The motion for a new trial is made by William H. Duncan, an attorney employed by the insurance carrier and who represented the defendants at the trial, and J. Reese Daniel, an attorney for the insurance carrier, who was not of counsel for the defendants at the trial.
F. R. Gressette is the personal attorney for the defendants and represented them at the trial of the case. He did not sign or make the motion for a new trial, but stated at the hearing that he would join in the motion.
F. R. Gressette, the personal attorney for the defendants, knew that one of the defendants was a minor and knew that a guardian ad litem had not been appointed for him in this action. He knew that in an action in the State Court growing out of the same facts as in this case the defendant W. R. Sikes, Sr. had been duly appointed guardian ad litem for the minor defendant W. R. Sikes, Jr. in the State Court action. Repeated attempts on my part to have the attorneys for the defendants to explain to me why they did not notify the court of the minority of the defendant W. R. Sikes, Jr. at or before or during the trial of the case were to no avail. The only reply I could get to my questions was from attorney Gressette who said, "I just didn't".
In my opinion the rights and interests of the minor in the instant action were fully represented and adequately protected by the presence of his father, one of the defendants in the action, and his attorneys, and that no injury resulted to the minor from the failure to appoint a guardian ad litem for him.
Everything was done for the minor defendant by his father and his able and experienced...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Donnelly v. Parker
...548, 550 (10th Cir. 1963). See also Till v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 124 F.2d 405, 408-409 (10th Cir. 1941); Rutland v. Sikes, 203 F.Supp. 276, 277 (E.D.S.C.), aff'd, 311 F.2d 538 (4th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 830, 83 S.Ct. 1871, 10 L.Ed.2d 1053 20 As we have said, Fed.R.Ci......
-
Kennedy v. Secretary of Health
...did not render judgment void); Till v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 124 F.2d 405, 408-09 (10th Cir. 1941) (same); Rutland v. Sikes, 203 F. Supp. 276, 277 (D.S.C. 1962), aff'd, 311 F.2d 538 (4th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 830 (1963) (failure to appoint guardian ad litem did not render......
-
Jacobs v. Board of School Commissioners
...inadequately or that any party was prejudiced by the absence of a guardian ad litem. See Till and Westcott, supra, and Rutland v. Sikes, 203 F.Supp. 276 (E.D. S.C., 1962), aff'd on other grounds, 311 F.2d 538 (4 Cir.), cert. denied 374 U.S. 830, 83 S.Ct. 1871, 10 L.Ed.2d 2. The Constitution......
-
Laundry, Dry Clean. & DH Wkrs. Int. U., Loc. 93 v. Mahoney
...as defendants. See, Westcott v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, 158 F.2d 20 (4th Cir. 1946); Rutland, Administrator v. Sikes, et al., 203 F.Supp. 276 (E.D.S.C.), aff'd, 311 F.2d 538 (4th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 830, 83 S.Ct. 1871, 10 L.Ed.2d 1053 The judgment below i......