Bell v. Bannister
| Decision Date | 23 October 1924 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 477. |
| Citation | 101 So. 653,212 Ala. 31 |
| Parties | BELL ET AL. v. BANNISTER ET AL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Shelby County; E. S. Lyman, Judge.
Action in ejectment by Cecil Bell and others against J. C. Bannister and others. From a judgment granting defendants' motion to set aside the verdict and judgment rendered for plaintiffs, and grant a new trial, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
J. R. Beavers, of Birmingham, and L. H. Ellis, of Columbiana, for appellants.
Longshore, Koenig & Longshore, of Columbiana, for appellees.
The suit is statutory ejectment. Some of the defendants are infants. They have no general guardian. No guardian ad litem was appointed to represent them on the trial. The issues involved their title to the land sued for.
A judgment against infants brought within the jurisdiction of the court by proper service of process is not void and subject to collateral attack for want of a general guardian or guardian ad litem to represent and protect their interests; but such judgment is erroneous and subject to reversal on appeal.
The fact that their mother was a codefendant, entered a plea of not guilty for them, set up their title, and probably produced all the evidence which a guardian could have produced, will not suffice. They "must be defended by a guardian of the appointment of the court." Such is the plain mandate of the law. Code 1907, § 2476; Id., § 4482; Levystein Bros. v. O'Brien, 106 Ala. 352, 17 So. 550, 30 L. R. A. 707, 54 Am. St. Rep. 56; Conway v. Clark, 177 Ala. 99, 58 So. 441; Crowder v. Arnett, 193 Ala. 470, 68 So. 1005; Hamilton v. Tolley, 209 Ala. 533, 96 So. 584; Griffith v. Ventress, 91 Ala. 366, 8 So. 312, 11 L. R. A. 193, 24 Am. St. Rep. 918.
For this error the court below properly granted the motion for a new trial.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trolinger v. Cluff
...disaffirmance. (Gouanillou v. Industrial Acc. Com., 184 Cal. 418, 193 P. 937; De Guzman v. Shepherd, 225 Mich. 606, 196 N.W. 523; Bell v. Bannister, supra; Johnson Waterhouse, supra.) Chapman & Chapman, for Respondent. A judgment rendered against a minor in the absence of a guardian ad lite......
- McGee v. S. M. Freeman & Son