Palazzolo v. Verdier, Motion No. 339.

• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Citation: 234 Mich. 547,208 N.W. 677
• Docket Number: Motion No. 339.
• Parties: PALAZZOLO v. VERDIER, Superior Court Judge.
• Decision Date: 30 April 1926

234 Mich. 547

208 N.W. 677

PALAZZOLO

v.VERDIER, Superior Court Judge.

Motion No. 339.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

April 30, 1926.

Mandamus by Joseph Palazzolo by his next friend, Jacob Palazzolo, to compel Leonard D. Verdier, as Superior Court Judge, to vacate order denying petition to set aside judgment. Writ granted.

Argued before the entire court.Wicks, Fuller & Starr, and Linsey, Shivel & Smedley, all of Grand Rapids, for relator.

Dilley, Souter & Dilley, of Grand Rapids, for respondent.

BIRD, C. J.

Joseph Palazzolo is an infant, four years of age. He lives with his parents in Grand Rapids. On May 16, 1924, the automobile of Roy C. Sackett, driven by Carleton C. Becker, ran against and over Joseph, seriously injuring his leg. He eas laid up for several months, and required hospital services and the attention of a physician. When a large amount of expenses had accrued, the mother of Joseph took the bills to the office of the Casualty Company, and asked it to pay them. The interest of the Casualty Company was because it had written the insurance upon Sackett's car. After some little delay, the Casualty Company paid $415 to cover the bills, but at the same time making protest that there was no liability. Feeling that the matter had not been legally concluded, the attorneys for the Casualty Company had Jacob, the father of Joseph, petition the court to be appointed next friend. It then claims it made a settlement with Jacob and Alice, the father and mother of the boy, for $125. The Casualty Company then employed counsel to appear for the boy in court. A declaration was filed by them charging defendant with operating the automobile in a reckless manner and with excessive speed. Subsequently the attorneys for the Casualty Company and the attorneys it had employed for the boy went into court, and took a ‘confessed judgment’ for $125 in favor of Joseph on the agreement made with the parents. Neither the boy nor his parents were present when the judgment was taken. The father of the boy refused to accept the money on this judgment. Subsequently different counsel were substituted for the boy, and they filed a petition, praying that the judgment be set aside. The matter was heard by defendant and denied. This application was then made for a writ of mandamus to compel defendant to vacate his order of denial. The question raised is whether the settlement and judgment bind the infant.

The authority of a parent, guardian, or next friend to settle property rights of an infant by compromise was considered and determined recently in the case of Metzner v. Newman, 224 Mich. 324, 194 N. W. 1008, 33 A. L. R. 98. The question there involved was the rights of minors as legatees under the will of their grandfather. After reviewing the authorities at some length, we said:

‘This court having looked with favor upon the adjustment of the differences of adult relatives with reference to the settlement of estates will also look favorably upon the adjustment of differences in the family over the settlement of estates where infant legatees are interested, provided the proposed compromise of the differences is submitted to the court and a finding made that the settlement and compromise are for the best interests of the infant.'

It is our...