Fowlkes v. Memphis & Charleston Railroad

38 Ala. 310

Opinion

A. J. WALKER, C. J.

In the original summons and complaint, Cynthia L. Fowlkes was the sole plaintiff, and Ransom H. Fowlkes was in no sense a party to the suit. The change proposed would have converted it into the suit of Ransom II. Fowlkes alone. The grochien amy of an infant plaintiff is not himself a plaintiff. He is but a species of attorney, who is permitted to act for the infant, so far as to conduct his suit; but his power is comprised within a very narrow compass, as he is not even authorized to receive the amount which may be recovered by the infant. — See Isaacs v. Boyd, 5 Porter, 390 ; Smith v. Redus, 9 Ala. 99; Sutherlin v. Goff, 5 Porter, 608; Hooks v. Smith, 18 Ala. 838. Our previous decisions constrain us to bold, that the amendment proposed — the striking out of tbe sole plaintiff, and tbe substitution of another person — was no.t authorized by tbe Code. — Laird v. Moore, 27 Ala. 326; Friend v. Oliver, 27 Ala. 532; Stodder v. Grant & Nickles, 28 Ala. 419.

Judgment affirmed.

R. W. YfALKER, J., not sitting.