had run. In so holding, this Court noted that [t]he wife’s injury is the meritorious cause of action, and, in legal effect, it is the action of the wife. If the statute of limitations does not operate to bar her action, this suit is not barred, for the husband has, independently of her, no right of action whatever. In Tennessee the statutes of limitation apply to the cause of action, and are not directed to their mere form. Id. at 613 (quoting Fink v. Campbell, 70 F. 664, 667-68 (6th Cir.1895)). More recently, our Court of Appe 043 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1978) (adopting majority rule that appointment of guardian for mentally incompetent person does not terminate tolling and start running of limitations period); Whalen v. Certain-Teed Prods. Corp., 108 Ga.App. 686, 134 S.E.2d 528, 530 (1963) (<HOLDING>); Barton-Malow Co. v. Wilburn, 556 N.E.2d 324,
holding that the appointment of a guardian for a mentally incompetent or nonage person does not have the effect of commencing the running of the period of limitations tolled by virtue of the disability holding that appointment of guardian does not operate to start statute of limitations running in cases where title to cause of action is in person belonging to class of disabled persons encompassed within tolling provision holding that appointment of a conservator does not remove a mentally disabled persons legal disability so as to start the statute of limitations running holding that tolling statute applicable to those disabled by minority or mental illness continues to operate regardless of guardians appointment holding that appointment of guardian over incompetent adult does not remove legal disability so as to halt tolling and commence running of statute of limitations