Collins v. Gillespy

Supreme Court of Alabama

Collins v. Gillespy

41 So. 930, 148 Ala. 558, 1906 Ala. LEXIS 311

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 30, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 41 So. 930 (Collins v. Gillespy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Collins v. Gillespy, 41 So. 930, 148 Ala. 558, 1906 Ala. LEXIS 311 (Ala. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

DENSON, J.

— “It is the general rule that no one but a regularly qualified guardian of an infant has authority to receive paymen t, and enter satisfaction of a judg ment recovered in favoi of such infant, and that a nexc ■friend has no such authority.” And although there are authorities which seem to take the contrary, view, this court has decided that a next friend has no such au[560]*560thority.—Isaac v. Boyd, 5 Port. 388; Smith v. Redus, 9 Ala. 99, 44 Am. Dec. 429; 17 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law (2d Ed.) p. 859, and cases in note 10. See, also, with respect of the office of a prochem ami, the following cases: Thomason v. Gray, 84 Ala. 559, 4 South. 394; Cook v. Adams, 27 Ala. 294.; Cooper v. Maclin’s Heirs, 25 Ala. 299; Riddle v. Hanna, 25 Ala. 484; Klaus v. State, 54 Miss. 644; Mitchell v. Connolly, 1 Bailey (S. C.) 203. If the nest friend has not the authority to receive payment or enter satisfaction, it follows logically tli at an attorney who derives the only authority he has from the nest friend is not clothed with such authority.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment of the court must be affirmed.

Weakley, O. J., and Haralson and Dowdell, JJ.. concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DENSON, J.

— “It is the general rule that no one but a regularly qualified guardian of an infant has authority to receive paymen t, and enter satisfaction of a judg ment recovered in favoi of such infant, and that a nexc ■friend has no such authority.” And although there are authorities which seem to take the contrary, view, this court has decided that a next friend has no such au[560]*560thority.—Isaac v. Boyd, 5 Port. 388; Smith v. Redus, 9 Ala. 99, 44 Am. Dec. 429; 17 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law (2d Ed.) p. 859, and cases in note 10. See, also, with respect of the office of a prochem ami, the following cases: Thomason v. Gray, 84 Ala. 559, 4 South. 394; Cook v. Adams, 27 Ala. 294.; Cooper v. Maclin’s Heirs, 25 Ala. 299; Riddle v. Hanna, 25 Ala. 484; Klaus v. State, 54 Miss. 644; Mitchell v. Connolly, 1 Bailey (S. C.) 203. If the nest friend has not the authority to receive payment or enter satisfaction, it follows logically tli at an attorney who derives the only authority he has from the nest friend is not clothed with such authority.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment of the court must be affirmed.

Weakley, O. J., and Haralson and Dowdell, JJ.. concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 So. 930, 148 Ala. 558, 1906 Ala. LEXIS 311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-v-gillespy-ala-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack