Case Name: Sabine, by her guardian ad litem, vs. Fisher
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1875-01
Citations: 37 Wis. 376
Docket Number: 
Parties: Sabine, by her guardian ad litem, vs. Fisher.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 37
Pages: 376–377

Head Matter:
Sabine, by her guardian ad litem, vs. Fisher.
Amendment: Suit by Infant. (1) Brought without guardian. Appointment may he made on trial.
Exception. (2) To whole charge nugatory, unless whole erroneous.
New Trial. (8) Properly refused in case.
1. Plaintiff having commenced the action without any appointment of a guardian ad litem, there was no error in permitting her to amend so as to prosecute by such guardian, after the introduction of evidence in her behalf, which showed her to be a minor.
2. A general exception to a charge consisting of several propositions, raises no question for review in this court.
8. Where there was evidence sufficient to support the verdict, and no abuse of discretion in refusing a new trial, this court cannot disturb the order.
APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Jefferson County.
Action for breach of promise of marriage. The action was originally brought in tbe name of tbe plaintiff without guardian. On the trial it appeared in the plaintiff’s evidence that she was under the age of twenty-one years. Thereupon her counsel moved for leave to have a guardian ad litem appointed to prosecute the action for her, to which defendant’s counsel objected and moved the court to dismiss the action. The court allowed the motion of plaintiff and appointed a guardian ad litem, and the trial proceeded, resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff. The exceptions are stated in the opinion.
V. W. Seely, for appellant.
[No brief on file.]
Qillet & Hammond, for respondent,
argued that the appointment of a guardian ad litem was proper. Hafern v. Davis, 10 Wis., 501; Wheeler v. Smith, 18 id., 651. The question is one of regularity only. Hof tailing v. Teal, 11 How. Pr., 188 ; Hill v. Thacker, 3 How., 407. And not jurisdictional. Rutter v. Ruchhofer, 9 Bósw., 68'8. Motion to dismiss should have been made before answer. Parles v. Parks, 19 Abb., 161; Fellows v. Hives’, 18 Wend., 563 ; Schermerhorn v. Jenkins, 7 Johns., 373; Treadwell v. Bruder, 3 E. D. Smith, 596. The exception to the charge is general.

Opinion:
RyaN, 0. J.
We see no ground for disturbing the judgment
There is no error in the leave given to the respondent to amend, so as to prosecute the suit by her next friend. Had she proceeded without leave, the judgment could not be reversed on that ground. Hafern v. Davis, 10 Wis., 501; Wheeler v. Smith, 18 id., 651.
The exception to the charge of the court below is general, and therefore can raise no question here. Heath v. Heath, 31 Wis., 223. But we have looked into the charge, and see no misdirection or ground for complaint in it.
The're certainly was abundant evidence to support the verdict, and the facts were fairly submitted to the jury. There does not appear to have been an abuse of discretion in refusing a new trial, and we cannot disturb the order. Jones v. Evans, 28 Wis., 168.
These appear to be the only exceptions in the record. The judgment of the court below must therefore be affirmed.
By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.