Rice v. Rice

• Decision Date: 16 May 1895
• Citation: 106 Ala. 636,17 So. 628
• Parties: RICE v. RICE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

17 So. 628

106 Ala. 636

RICE v. RICE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 16, 1895

Appeal from circuit court, Montgomery county; John R. Tyson, Judge.

Action by Alexander Rice against Samuel Rice on a promissory note. Judgment was rendered for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Charles Wilkinson, for appellant.

E. A Graham, for appellee.

McCLELLAN J.

The following is the original complaint in this cause "Alex. Rice trustee of Jennie, Lena, and Belle Rice, Plaintiff, v. Samuel Rice, Defendant. The plaintiff claims of the defendant the sum of two hundred and twenty dollars, due by promissory note dated January 2, 1886, and payable, according to the terms thereof, on the 1st day of January, 1887; and plaintiff alleges that said note is made payable to him as trustee of Jennie, Lena, and Belle Rice, and that this suit is brought as such trustee. Plaintiff further alleges that defendant agreed to pay interest on said sum due as aforesaid from January 2, 1886, which said sum of $220.00, together with the interest thereon, is now due and unpaid." And this is the note sued on: "Montgomery, Ala., Jan. 2nd, 1886. On the first day of January, 1887, I promise to pay to the order of Alex. Rice, Sr., as trustee for Jennie, Lena, and Belle Rice, minors, $220.00; value received; interest paid until maturity. Sam'l Rice." The case coming on for trial the plaintiff amended the complaint by striking out the words, "trustee for Jennie, Lena, and Belle Rice," and then he offered to further amend by inserting after his name the words, "as next friend of Jennie, Lena, and Belle Rice." This proposed amendment was, on defendant's objection, disallowed by the court, and the cause was tried as upon the complaint of Alexander Rice in his individual capacity, and the court, at the request of the defendant, gave the affirmative charge in the latter's favor. So far as this action of the court was rested upon the ground that the suit was improperly prosecuted in the name of Alexander Rice individually, it cannot be sustained. Notwithstanding the provision of the statute that "actions on promissory notes *** must be prosecuted in the name of the party really interested" (Code, § 2594) when the promise is made to one person for the benefit of another, either may sue (Mason v. Hall, 30 Ala. 599, and Shotwell v. Gilkey, 31 Ala. 724); and where the party having the legal title-the payee named in a promissory note-is also the party entitled to receive the money and discharge the debtor, "although, when collected, he holds the money, not for his own use, but for the use of some other person, and to whose use he is to apply it, or to whom he is bound to pay it, in all such cases the action must be in the name of the party having the legal title." Per Peck, C.J., in Yerby v. Sexton, 48 Ala. 311, 325. And to like effect it is said by Manning, J.: "This section 2523 [now 2594] has caused much perplexity in practice. But whenever a party has the legal title, if he is a party to whom payment can be legally made, and who can legally discharge the debtor, the action may be brought in his name, although the money, when collected, is not for his use." Hirschfelder v. Mitchell, 54 Ala. 419. See, also, ...