Legal Opinion
Cook v. Rawdon
New York Supreme Court
Decided October 15, 1851PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Hand, Justice.
The guardian, as he is now called, of an infant plaintiff, should be a responsible person, for he is liable for costs (Code, § 316; Fulton vs. Rosevelt, 1 Paige, 178; Willes, 190 ; Dalrymple vs. Lamb, 3 Wend. 424; 2 Burr. Pr. 81).
I do not think that part of rule 56, requiring the guardian ad litem to be the general guardian or an attorney, &c, or other officer of the court, applies to a guardian for the plaintiff. Mr. Justice Willes, in Slaughter vs. Talbot,' said the practice of appointing officers, &c. was probably altered because they would be liable for costs ( Willes, 190).…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Clark v. FisherNew York Court of Chancery · 1828
- Bowers v. SmithNew York Court of Chancery · 1843
- Grant v. SchoonhovenNew York Court of Chancery · 1841
- Lawrence v. LawrenceNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
- Jackson ex dem. Hopkins v. LeekNew York Supreme Court · 1838
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Wice v. Commercial Fire InsuranceNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1877
- Wice v. Commercial InsuranceNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1877
- Voorhees ex rel. Jameson v. PolhemusNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1883