Burnham v. Seaverns
This text of 101 Mass. 360 (Burnham v. Seaverns) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Under the finding of the jury, the alleged malicious suit was commenced entirely without the knowledge or authority of the defendant, who was, during its pendency, an infant. It was prosecuted by the prochein ami, in theory at least receiving his appointment from the court, and having sole control of the case, so long as he is allowed by the court to retain the place. The defendant had no power to prosecute or discontinue the suit during his minority. Bac. Ab. Infancy and Age, K, 2. Guild v. Cranston, 8 Cush. 506. If the infant expressly assented to the suit after he had knowledge of it, yet he cannot become a trespasser by such assent, being liable only for his own personal acts. 1 Chit. Pl. (6th ed.) 76. The case of Sterling v. Adams, 3 Day, 411, which bears some resemblance to this, differs in the fact that there the suit was prosecuted by the defendant after he became of age, though commenced be-"ore. Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
101 Mass. 360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burnham-v-seaverns-mass-1869.