Hoftailing v. Teal

New York Supreme Court

Hoftailing v. Teal

11 How. Pr. 188

DecidedMarch 15, 1855

StatusPublished

This text of 11 How. Pr. 188 (Hoftailing v. Teal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hoftailing v. Teal, 11 How. Pr. 188 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1855).

Pincite

Opinion

Harris, Justice.

Under the former practice, an infant plaintiff sued by a next friend, and the infant defendant appeared by a guardian. But the Code requires that an infant party, whether plaintiff or defendant, should appear by guardian. This change the plaintifPs attorney has, inadvertently, failed to notice. It is true, as was said upon the argument of the motion, that the difference is but in name. And yet the legislature has seen fit to declare, that the person by whom an infant plaintiff shall be permitted to sue, shall be a guardian. To commence an action in any other way is an irregularity. It is [189]*189by no means certain that the next friend in this case would be liable as a guardian. I am inclined to think he would not. But, at any rate, the defendant was not bound to take the risk of such a question.

Though I do it with some reluctance, I am constrained to grant the motion, with costs.

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

Harris, Justice.

Under the former practice, an infant plaintiff sued by a next friend, and the infant defendant appeared by a guardian. But the Code requires that an infant party, whether plaintiff or defendant, should appear by guardian. This change the plaintifPs attorney has, inadvertently, failed to notice. It is true, as was said upon the argument of the motion, that the difference is but in name. And yet the legislature has seen fit to declare, that the person by whom an infant plaintiff shall be permitted to sue, shall be a guardian. To commence an action in any other way is an irregularity. It is [189]*189by no means certain that the next friend in this case would be liable as a guardian. I am inclined to think he would not. But, at any rate, the defendant was not bound to take the risk of such a question.

Though I do it with some reluctance, I am constrained to grant the motion, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 How. Pr. 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoftailing-v-teal-nysupct-1855.