Hardy ex rel. Boyle v. Scanlin
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
THIS was an action of trespass vi et arniis, assault and battery, &c. on behalf of James Boyle, the guardian, obtained a rule to show cause why the summons should not be quashed.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of trespass vi et arniis, assault and battery, &c. on behalf of James Boyle, the guardian, obtained a rule to show cause why the summons should not be quashed. He had filed an affidavit of the said Boyle, stating that he did not authorize the suit; that he did not desire it to proceed in his name; that the minor had never informed him for what purpose it was broúght; that he knew nothing of it till inquired of by the defendant as to the cause of action ; and that he disclaimed all willingness and consent that the action should be carried on as above entitled, and desired…
1Per curiam
It is the duly of the court to protect the infant so far as to give him an opportunity to be heard ; and it, is clearly within out power to make such an order as will lead to a trial that shall be fair for both parties. An unwilling guardian might embarrass the proceedings, and, before the defendant can be compelled to plead, there should be an adverse party on record responsible for costs. Though an infant must appear and defend by guardian, yet he may sue either by guardian or prochein amy. Co. Litt. 135, b. Without, then, making absolute this rule, the court, on the application of Boyle,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Martin v. WeymanTexas Supreme Court · 1863
- Long v. BehanCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1898
- Ross v. Schlosser, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County1923