West v. West

• Decision Date: 21 May 1890
• Citation: 7 So. 830,90 Ala. 458
• Parties: WEST ET AL. v. WEST.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

7 So. 830

90 Ala. 458

WEST ET AL. v. WEST.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 21, 1890

Appeal from chancery court, Marshall county; S. K. MCSPADDEN, Judge.

The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. Code Ala. 1886 § 2582, referred to therein, is a section of part 3, tit. 1 entitled "Proceedings in Civil Cases in Courts of Common Law," while section 3417 comes under title 4 "Proceedings in Chancery."

Lusk & Bell, for appellants.

Brown & Holliday, for appellee.

CLOPTON J.

The bill is filed by appellee, as the guardian of William F. Johnson, against whom an inquisition of lunacy was taken in the probate court of Yell county, Ark., and seeks a partition of the lands owned by his ward and the defendants as tenants in common. The first ground of demurrer is that the lunatic is not made a party. The general rule in a court of equity is that all persons having a material interest in the subject-matter of a suit must be made parties, in order that complete justice may be done, and that they may be concluded by the decree. This rule applies to infants and lunatics. The settled practice in England in bringing suits in the chancery court for the benefit of lunatics is to file the bill in the name of the lunatic by his committee, or to join the lunatic and committee as complainants, unless the object of the suit is to avoid an act done by the lunatic during his lunacy, in which case he may be joined or omitted. Willis, Eq. P1. 5; Coop. Eq. Pl. 31. The rule is thus stated in Story, Eq. Pl. § 65: "In some of the states of America, the courts of equity are intrusted with the like authority [as in England] to appoint committees for idiots and lunatics, and in such case the idiots and lunatics sue by their committees. In other states, idiots and lunatics are by law placed under guardians appointed by other courts, and ordinarily by the courts of probate of the state. In such cases, the idiots and lunatics sue and defend suits by their proper guardians, unless some other is specially appointed for that purpose." In Gorham v. Gorham, 3 Barb. Ch. 24, the question of the necessity of making a lunatic a party was fully discussed, and the foregoing rules sustained. After reviewing the elementary writers and authorities, the chancellor observes: "When it is said by these writers that idiots and lunatics must sue by their committees, it is not meant that the suit is to be brought by the committee in his own name, merely describing himself as the committee of the lunatic, as has been erroneously supposed by the court of one of our sister states. But they mean that the suit should be brought in the name of the lunatic, stating that he sues by the committee of his estate, naming them, as in the case of an infant suing by his next friend, or that the suit should be prosecuted in the names of the lunatic and of his committee." The necessity of making the lunatic a party rests on the principle that a decree in favor of his guardian, merely describing himself as such, would not be a decree in favor of the lunatic; and, if the suit proved unsuccessful, would not protect the defendant from subsequent litigation by the lunatic, should he be restored to soundness of mind, and to possession and control of his property. In the present bill, complainant describes himself as guardian of the lunatic, and brings the bill for his ward, naming him. This, as it appears from the above authorities, is insufficient to make the lunatic a party, so that final decree of partition shall conclude him.

But it is contended that this mode of bringing the suit is authorized by section 2582 of the Code, which provides that "in all suits in which the ward has an interest, and the recovery inures to his or her benefit, a guardian may sue in his own name for the use of the ward." This statutory provision does not apply to suits in chancery. In Blackman v. Davis, 42 Ala. 184, the guardian of minor children filed, in his own name, an application for the removal of an administrator. The petition was demurred to on the ground that the guardian was not authorized to file it in his...