Sick v. Michigan Aid Ass'n
| Decision Date | 27 June 1882 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | SICK and another v. MICHIGAN AID ASSOCIATION. |
Where a mother, the father being dead, sues in the joint right of herself and her minor children, naming them as co-plaintiffs with her, the fact that she does not name herself as their next friend is not a ground for abatement of the suit.
In such case an amendment should be allowed by procuring her appointment as next friend of her children.
The objection that the appointment should have been procured for the prosecution of the writ of error, or that the adult plaintiff should have severed in its prosecution, comes too late at the hearing. It should have been taken on motion to dismiss.
Error to Marquette.
F.O. Clark, for plaintiffs and appellants.
J.W Breese, for defendant.
The plea in abatement should not have been sustained in this case. The suit is on a peculiar contract of insurance of the life and health of Frederick Sick, and is instituted in the name of his widow and minor children.
If the infants alone had been the beneficiaries, a next friend must have been appointed for them before instituting suit Comp.Laws, � 6531; Wilder v. Ember, 12 Wend. 191; but this is in order that the defendant may have some one responsible to him for costs; and the statute has made no such requirement where the infants are joined with an adult plaintiff. Still there must be even in such cases some competent party representing on the record the interests of the infant plaintiffs, and the authorities seem to have recognized no exception to this rule, except the case of joint executors, some of whom are under age and others not. As the authority is joint in such a case the adult executors represent all. 1 Tidd, Pr. 99; 2 Saund. 212a, notes 4 and 5; Cro.Eliz. 541; though if the suit were against the executors the infants must appear by guardian. Frescobaldi v Kinaston, Strange, 783. But it is not essential that a next friend should be appointed by the court itself; it is only necessary that the court should recognize his representative capacity and not dissent. Apthorp v Backus, Kirby 409; Judson v. Blanchard, 3 Conn. 579; Stewart v. Crabbin's Guardian, 6 Munf. 280. And any proper person may present himself and be accepted for this purpose where no reason appears to the contrary. Stephenson v. Stephenson, 3 Hayw. 123.
This case is peculiar. The mother--the father being dead--sues in the joint right of herself and her minor children, naming them as co-plaintiffs with her. She does...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Haist
...Car. 263. The foreign guardian might even be regarded as a proper person to sue as next friend. 13 Mont. 70; 3 N.H. 345; 126 Pa.St. 426; 49 Mich. 50; 24 S.W. 604; 9 Utah 23; 96 N. Car. 19; 6 Coldw. 619. court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter. 39 Minn. 11; 62 Ark. 254; 51 Ark. 459; 47 ......
-
Olin by Curtis v. Mercy Health Hackley Campus
..."natural guardian" and the person who "is really and manifestly proceeding as [plaintiff’s next friend]." Sick v. Mich. Aid Ass'n , 49 Mich. 50, 52, 12 N.W. 905 (1882). To summarize, the governing court rules and caselaw clearly indicate that a minor is the real party in interest in a claim......
-
Moebius v. McCracken
...validity of the Ohio judgment on the ground that there was no formal appointment of a next friend by a court. In Sick v. Michigan Aid Association, 49 Mich. 50, 12 N. W. 905, it was held that in a suit on an insurance policy, begun in the name of the widow and her children, all of whom were ......
-
Hill v. Reed
...Act (Act June 16, 1906, c. 3335, 34 Stat. 267) for final disposition. Sam K. Sullivan, for plaintiff in error, cited: Sick v. Association (Mich.) 12 N.W. 905; Linner v. Crouse, 61 Barb. 289; Hoftailing v. Teal, 11 How. Prac. 188; Segelkin v. Meyer, 94 N.Y. 473; Twine v. Carey (Okla.) 37 P. ......