Case Name: DONALD McLARTY, Non Compos Mentis, by Christine McLarty Welzer, as Guardian ad Litem, Appellant, v. WILLIAM RAYMOND, Respondent
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: North Dakota
Decision Date: 1919-04-29
Citations: 42 N.D. 241
Docket Number: 
Parties: DONALD McLARTY, Non Compos Mentis, by Christine McLarty Welzer, as Guardian ad Litem, Appellant, v. WILLIAM RAYMOND, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Dakota Reports
Volume: 42
Pages: 241–246

Head Matter:
DONALD McLARTY, Non Compos Mentis, by Christine McLarty Welzer, as Guardian ad Litem, Appellant, v. WILLIAM RAYMOND, Respondent.
(172 N. W. 836.)
Damages — appointment of guardian for suit who is non compos mentis — power of trial court to appoint.
In an action for damages apparently based upon fraudulent representations made to secure the execution of certain notes and a mortgage for $1,000, and upon the wrongful connivance of the defendant thereby securing the incarceration of the plaintiff, who was non compos mentis, in the insane asylum, it is held upon the record that the trial court was authorized to appoint a guardian ad litem, and that the complaint fails to state cause of action.
Opinion filed April 29, 1919.
Action for damages.
Appeal from an order sustaining demurrer, in District Court, Williams County, Fish, J.
Affirmed.
Brace & Stuart, for appellant.
“An insane person has a right to sue.” 16 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, «00.
“A guardian ad litem is not a party to the suit, but is appointed by the court to protect the property rights of the noncompetent.” 15 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 2. See Comp. Laws 1913, § 7401; Mailen v. Mailen, 2 Johns. Oh. 238; Denney v. Denney, 8 Allen, 313; 1 Dan. Oh. Pr. 83; Story, Eq. Pr. § 66; Deil v. Smith, L. P. 9 Ch. 91; Mass. Gen. Stat. 1860, chap. 109, § 18; Plympton v. Hall, 55 Minn. 22, 21 L.R.A. 675, 56 N. W. 351; 10 Standard Proc. 710; 13 Standard Proc. 598; Frieseke v. Frieske, 138 Mich. 458, 101 N. W. 632.
A misjoinder of causes of action is a misjoinder of causes belonging to different classes, such as contract and tort, etc. 6 Standard Proc. 902; Ooddington v. Canady, 157 Ind. 243, 61 N. W. 567; Kurtz v. Lyden Canyon Sanatorium Co. 37 Utah, 313, 108 Pac. 14; Boyd v. Mut. F. Asso. 116 Wis. 155, 61 L.R.A. 918, 90 N. W. 1086, 94 N. W. 171; Kope v. Winterfield, 116 Wis. 44, 92 N. W. 437; Crosby v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. 128 Fed. 193, affirmed in 70 C. C. A. 199, 137 Fed. 765; Randal v. Johnson, 20 N. D. 493, 128 N. W. 687.
Under the codes, as a rule it is no ground for demurrer that several causes of action are not separately stated. N. D. Comp. Laws 1913, ■§ 7466; 6 Standard Proc. 904; Tishbein v. Paine, 52 Ind. App. 441, 100 N. E. 766; First Nat. Bank v. Ingle, 37 Okla. 276, 132 Pac. 895; Danielson v. Garage Equipment Mfg. Co. 151 Wis. 492, 139 N. W. 443.
Craven & Converse, for respondent.
“When an infant is a party he must appear either by his general guardian or by a guardian appointed by tbe court in which the action is pending.” Comp. Laws 1913, §§ 7399, 7401, 8885; Tiffany v. Worthington, 96 Iowa, 560, 65 N. W. 817; Beall v. Smith, 43 L. J. Oh. N. S. 245, L. E. 9 Ch. 85, 29 L. T. N. S. 625, 22 Week. Rep. 121; Gustafison v. Ericksdotter (Kan.) 16 Pac. 91. ' ~

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This is an action for damages. The cause of action dates back to 1909. The real party in interest is non compos mentis. In the month of October, 1916, nearly a month prior to the institution of this action, the trial court, upon the application of the plaintiff, appointed a guardian ad litem. The action was instituted in November, 1916. A demurrer was interposed to the complaint upon four grounds; viz.
1. No legal capacity to sue.
2. Defect of parties plaintiff in that the incompetent person can prosecute his action only by a general guardian.
3. Facts insufficient to constitute a cause of action; and,
4. Several causes of action improperly united.
The trial court in March, 1918, sustained the demurrer, and from its order so doing the plaintiff has appealed.
The record does not show the existence of any general guardian for the incompetent. Consequently the court was authorized, under § 7401, Comp. Laws 1913, to appoint a guardian ad litem.
The complaint, however, fails to state a cause of action. It will serve no useful purpose to extend this opinion by an involved consideration of the allegations of this complaint. It is hard indeed to discover either a theory or a purpose from the viewpoint of the pleader. The gist of the action seems to be the false representations made by the defendant to this incompetent by reason of which he was induced to execute certain notes and a mortgage for $1,000 in order to be in a position to marry the sister-in-law of the defendant; and that the defendant, through wrongful connivance, secured the incarceration of the plaintiff in the hospital for the insane. The complaint grounds an action neither in false imprisonment nor upon fraud and deceit; even the old common-law action on the case cannot be predicated upon allegations of this complaint. In fact, the complaint shows no deprivation of property possessed by the incompetent. Possibly a cause of action may exist in favor of the incompetent. This court is not disposed to forever bar tbe plaintiff from maintaining his cause of action, if one be has. Tbe order of tbe trial court is affirmed, with costs to tbe respondent, without prejudice to the plaintiff proceeding upon an application before tbe trial court to amend bis complaint either as to tbe party plaintiff or as to tbe cause of action, as be may deem proper.