Morrison v. Morrison
Citations
- 25 Wash. 466
- 65 P. 779
- 1901 Wash. LEXIS 417
Syllabus
<p>JUDGMENT AGAINST MINORS — VACATION- — PROCEDURE.</p> <p>Under Bal. Code, § 5153, subd. 8, which provides that a judgment may be modified or vacated for error therein shown by a minor within twelve months after arriving at full age, and un,der § 5157, Id., which provides that “in such proceedings the party shall be brought into court in the same way, on the same notice as to time, mode of service and mode of return, and the pleadings shall be governed by the same principles, and issues be made up by tbe same form, and all tbe proceedings conducted in the same way, as near as can be, as in original action by ordinary proceedings, except that the facts stated in the petition shall be deemed denied without answer, and defendant shall introduce no new cause, and the cause of the petition shall alone be tried,” it is not required that the petitioner shall file his motion or petition in the original case, nor is any statutory form of procedure prescribed by such sections which must be strictly pursued.</p> <p>SAME-PARTIES.</p> <p>In an action by a minor within one year after attaining majority to vacate a judgment, a sister affected by the same judgment, but who was past the age when she could maintain the like kind of action, and against whom no relief was sought, is not a necessary party to the action seeking to open up the judgment.</p> <p>PROCESS — SERVICE UPON GUARDIAN OP MINORS-NUMBER OP COPIES NECESSARY.</p> <p>Service of one copy of summons upon the father, in an action in which his three minor children were defendants, was sufficient, where a copy was left with each of the minors, since the object of the service is.notice, and one copy served on the father would answer that purpose as well as an increased number of copies.</p> <p>WILLS-FAILURE TO MENTION CHILDREN-ADMISSIBILITY OP EVIDENCE TO SHOW TESTATOR’S INTENT.</p> <p>In an action by a minor within one year after arriving at the age of majority to vacate a judgment awarding all the property of plaintiff’s d
Judges: Mount
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
7 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Palmquist v. SagstadWashington Supreme Court· 1910-02-15· cited 50×
- Wilson v. HubbardWashington Supreme Court· 1905-09-05· cited 21×
- Van Brocklin v. WoodWashington Supreme Court· 1905-04-18· cited 16×
- Smith v. SteenNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1915-07-08· cited 15×
- Roots v. KnoxOregon Supreme Court· 1923-02-06· cited 10×
- Meeker v. MettlerWashington Supreme Court· 1908-10-03· cited 8×
- Gravelle v. Canadian & American Mortgage & Trust Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1906-03-27· cited 3×
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Bower v. BowerWashington Supreme Court· 1892-11-18· cited 26×
- Roberts v. Shelton Southwestern RailroadWashington Supreme Court· 1899-09-02· cited 15×
- Purdy v. DavisWashington Supreme Court· 1895-11-30· cited 14×
- Hill v. HillWashington Supreme Court· 1893-12-21· cited 13×
- Long v. EisenbeisWashington Supreme Court· 1898-01-08· cited 11×
- Richardson v. LoupeCalifornia Supreme Court· 1889-09-12· cited 9×
- Huggins v. DabbsSupreme Court of Arkansas· 1893-05-20· cited 4×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.