other claims, and “courts have no authority to engraft exceptions, which are not found in the statutes.” Barclay v. Smith, 66 Ala. 230, 232 (1880). This Court has also indicated on previous occasions that the statute of limitations does not run on a minor’s claims regardless of whether the minor’s representative failed to or elected not to pursue claims on the minor’s behalf, negligently pursued claims on the minor’s behalf, or even if the minor’s representative pursued some claims while failing to pursue others. See Emerson, 404 So.2d at 579 (stating that, although a representative may file a claim on behalf of an injured minor, the failure to do so does not bar the minor from later doing so if § 6-2-8 is applicable); Spurling v. Fillingim, 244 Ala. 172, 176, 12 So.2d 740, 743 (1943) (<HOLDING>); Hood v. Johnston, 210 Ala. 617, 619, 99 So.
holding that in california the oneyear statute applies to a  1983 action holding that the oneyear period begins to run after the time for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari has expired holding that although the statute of limitations ran on the parents action the child could bring action after majority was reached holding that plaintiffs motion to amend her complaint to add her husband as a defendant did not relate back because her failure to sue her husband was not due to misnomer or mistake involving the identity of the proper party but because the law at the time of the complaint did not allow one spouse to sue another in tort holding that a minor who initiated an action through her next friend within the applicable oneyear limitations period seeking damages for injuries sustained in an automobile accident was permitted to amend her action to add another defendant even after that oneyear period expired because her right to maintain an action would continue for one year after she reached the age of majority