Hallmark v. Hopper

• Decision Date: 29 October 1898
• Citation: 24 So. 563,119 Ala. 78
• Parties: HALLMARK ET AL. v. HOPPER.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

24 So. 563

119 Ala. 78

HALLMARK ET AL. v. HOPPER.

Supreme Court of Alabama

October 29, 1898

Appeal from circuit court, Etowah county; J. A. Bilbro, Judge.

Action by Waldron Hopper, as agent for Neeler Hopper, against A. F Hallmark and others. From a judgment for plaintiff defendants appealed. Reversed.

This was an action on a promissory note, which was commenced before a justice of the peace. The title of the case, as stated in the complaint, was "Waldron Hopper, Agent for Neeler Hopper, vs. A. F. Hallmark, J. D. White, and M Hallmark." The summons described the plaintiff in the same way. The justice rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and thereupon the defendants took an appeal to the circuit court. The condition of the appeal bond was that if said "A. F. Hallmark, J. D. White, and M. Hallmark shall prosecute to effect an appeal by them taken this day to the next term of the circuit court of Etowah county, from a judgment rendered against them in favor of said Neeler Hopper," etc., "then this bond shall be void and of no effect," etc. In the circuit court there was a new complaint filed, in which the plaintiff is described as "Waldron Hopper, Agent for Neeler Hopper." The defendant filed a sworn decree, in which he set up that the suit was not brought in the name of the party really interested. Thereafter, in the circuit court, the plaintiff moved to amend the complaint, by striking out from the name of the plaintiff the following words, "Waldron Hopper Agent for," leaving the suit brought in the name of Neeler Hopper. The defendant objected to this motion. The court granted the motion, and allowed the complaint to so amend, and to this ruling the defendant duly excepted. This ruling is the only question presented for review on the present appeal. There were verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendants appeal, and assign as error the ruling of the court in allowing the plaintiff to amend his complaint.

Dortch & Martin, for appellants.

Amos E. Goodhue, for appellee.

McCLELLAN J.

There can be no question but that a suit brought in the name of "A. B., Agent for C. D.," is the suit of A. B., and not of C. D., and that the words "Agent for C. D." are merely personally descriptive of A. B., and superfluous. It is equally clear that an amendment by which such action would be made to stand in the name of C. D. as plaintiff would work an entire change of party plaintiff, and...