Carlton v. Miller

California Court of Appeal May 22, 1931 No. Docket No. 6590.Published

Before: Bishop, Conrey, Houser

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the Illinois judgment was valid and enforceable because the defendants' note contained a valid warrant of attorney authorizing the confession of judgment, and the plaintiff had the legal capacity to sue as he was not a 'committee' under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issues

Whether the plaintiff lacked the legal capacity to sue as a 'committee' under section 1913 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Whether the Illinois court lacked personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendants who were not served with process.
Whether the warrant of attorney in the note was void for uncertainty.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Both by accepted meaning and context, the “committee” referred to in section 1913 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a guardian appointed by the court or holding office under statute, and is not one to whom responsibility may have been- committed”

“where, as in this case, the authority given is exercised according to the terms of the instrument, there is a valid appearance, and the judgment which follows will be honored in the other states”

“We are of the opinion the note authorized the appearance which was made on appellants’ behalf, and that the court had jurisdiction to enter the judgment”

Opinion — Bishop

BISHOP, J.,

pro

tem.

A judgment in plaintiff’s favor entered in the circuit court, Livingston County, Illinois, is made the 'basis of this action. From the new judgment rendered in a superior court of this state, the defendants appeal, insisting that the judgment sued on is void because the Illinois court never acquired jurisdiction of the parties, and further, that plaintiff has no capacity to sue in this state. We find neither position defensible.

It appears from the evidence that Herbert A. Miller, a defendant, but not one of the appellants, was in some sort of financial difficulty with the town of Reading, Illinois, and the appellants, his parents, signed a note for $12,000 made payable to “Dennis Carlton, Trustee”, and sent it back to their son in Illinois. Dennis Carlton was incidentally supervisor of and, as such, treasurer of the road and bridge fund for the town of Reading. By ar

[275]

rangements made between the attorney for Reading and counsel for appellants and their son, it was provided that the plaintiff was to act as trustee for the town in the matter. The note not being paid, plaintiff brought suit upon it, recovering judgment for almost $9,000.

Appellants’, challenge to plaintiff’s appearance in our courts is placed on the ground that he is a committee of another government within the meaning of section 1913 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where it is said: “The effect of a judicial record of a sister state is the same in this state as in the state where it was made, except that it can only be enforced here by an action or special proceeding, and except, also, that the authority of a guardian or committee, or of an executor or administrator, does not extend beyond the jurisdiction of the government under which he was invested with his authority.” So far as we are apprised, there has been no interpretation by an appellate court of the word “committee”, as used in this section. The definition of this word as used in law is given in Punk and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary as follows: “A person or persons appointed by a court to the care of the person or property of another, as in the case of a lunatic or infant: a guardian.” In the following cases, offered by way of illustration, a “committee” is found to be the guardian of an insane person:

Carlton v. Miller

AI Brief

Opinion — Bishop

BISHOP, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

Concurrence — Conrey

AI Brief