Jeffrie v. Robideaux
| Decision Date | 31 January 1831 |
| Citation | 3 Mo. 33 |
| Parties | JEFFRIE v. ROBIDEAUX. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
ERROR FROM ST. LOUIS CIRCUIT COURT.
GEYER and BIRD, for plaintiff.
BENT, for defendant.
It appears by the record that in the year 1822, Jeffrie the plaintiff in error, by Rachel Camp, his next friend, by Robert Wash, Esq., an attorney at law, presented his petition to the Circuit Court of St. Louis county for leave to sue as a poor person for his freedom. The leave was granted; the suit was instituted and the proceedings afterwards were carried on by Jeffrie and R. Camp, the next friend, by their attorney. A trial was had; verdict and judgment were against Jeffrie. At a subsequent term of the court, Jeffrie moved the court to set aside the judgment on the ground of the proceedings being irregular, and produced evidence to show that at the time the suit was instituted and judgment rendered, he was an infant under the age of twenty-one years. The court refused to set the proceedings aside, and the whole case is brought to this court by a writ of error.
The points made by the plaintiff in error are, that the court erred in refusing to set aside the judgment for irregularity. Secondly. That the plaintiff appeared by a next friend and by attorney in the court below, so that if he was an infant, the appearance by an attorney was error; and thirdly, that if the record does not show the infancy of the plaintiff, then the court must take the truth to be that Jeffrie was an adult, and that an adult, except in cases of coverture, cannot appear by a next friend.
On the first point it is not entirely clear that the court should have set the proceedings aside, for the irregularity was occasioned by the act of the plaintiff, or by the act of some one who intended to act for him. But on the second ground, there is manifest error in the judgment and proceedings. The law is, that when an infant has cause of suit, the suit may be commenced by guardian or next friend, previously appointed according to law, and where none has been appointed, then the guardianship or next friend may be made without any other formality than the next friend acknowledging in open court that he will act as such, or the evidence may be made by the acknowledgment being in writing and filed with the declaration. No such evidence exists in this case. There was, therefore, no lawful prochein amy, yet one did in fact act. Now if it did appear that the plaintiff was an infant, which it does not, it would be error to appear by an unauthorized person. This person appears by attorney, as well as by next friend. This would also be error, if the plaintiff were an infant. But so far as any thing appears by the record, we are bound to suppose that this person was not an infant. Nothing appears by which we could distinguish that this plaintiff was not of age, any more than in other cases, except by a subsequent affidavit. In every case the court will take every plaintiff and every defendant to be of full age, till the point is made and the evidence heard, and though judgment be rendered against an infant, it is good till reversed. In this case, then, for all the purposes for which the party's age is to be now considered, we take the plaintiff to have been of full age at the time the suit was commenced. It was unlawful therefore, for R. Camp to present herself as the next friend of this man in the way she did. No one has a right to bring a suit or do the business of another so as to make his acts binding in law upon that other person, without his or her consent.(a)
It is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holton v. Towner
...Clarke, 52 Mo. 115. The judgment against Thomas J. Holton, Jr., although a minor, and no guardian was appointed, was not void. Jeffries v. Robideaux, 3 Mo. 33; Fulbright v. Cannefax, 30 Mo. 435; Gott v. Powell, 41 Mo. 416; Townsend v. Cox, 45 Mo. 401. Plaintiffs' possession was insufficient......
-
Charley v. Kelley
...was an infant. Such failure is a mere irregularity, and the judgment rendered is in force until set aside by direct proceedings. Jeffrie v. Robideaux, 3 Mo. 33; Townsend v. Cox, 45 Mo. 402; Walkenhurst Lewis, 24 Kan. 426; Porter v. Robinson, 13 Am. Dec. (Ky.) 153, and cases cited in note; C......
-
Weiss v. Coudrey
... ... Injunctions (3 Ed.), secs. 170-173; Drake v ... Hanshaw, 47 Ia. 291; Meyer v. Davis, 47 Ia ... 323; Truesdale v. McCormick, 126 Mo. 39; Jeffrie ... v. Robideaux, 3 Mo. 24; Millard v. Marmon, 116 ... Ill. 649; Eisenmeyer v. Murphy, 42 Minn. 84; ... Child v. Shannon, 16 Mo. 33; Bailey v ... ...
-
St. Francis Mill Co. v. Sugg
...were properly in court and defended. It is therefore presumed to be valid and binding on them. Bechel v. Erskine, 43 Iowa 213; Jeffrie v. Robadeux, 3 Mo. 33; Kemp v. Cook, Tyler on Inf. and Cov. [2 Ed.] 175. (4) Even though judgment be rendered against an infant without the appointment of a......