Leazar v. Cota
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
The plaintiff, Sarah Leazar, is an infant under twenty-one years of age, and Prank Leazar, who brings this suit as her next friend, is destitute of property, and irresponsible. The writ is indorsed by Sarah Leazar and Prank Leazar. At this term the defendant, upon proof of the irresponsibility of Prank Leazar, moved the court that the plaintiff be ordered to furnish a new indorser, which motion the court granted, subject to the plaintiff’s exception.
1Opinion of the CourtBell, C. J.
By the statute, original writs must be indorsed “by the plaintiff', his agent, or attorney, being an inhabitant of the State; *82if the plaintiff is not an inhabitant of this State, by some responsible person who is an inhabitant.”
By the construction always given to this statute, if the plaintiff is an inhabitant of the State, his indorsement, or that of his attorney or agent, is sufficient without reference to their responsibility. A different rule would operate as a denial of justice to every one who had the misfortune to be.poor. The next friend, guardian, &c., who prosecutes in behalf of a…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Clark v. FisherNew York Court of Chancery · 1828
- Gilbert v. President of the Nantucket BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Hartley v. HartleyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1860
- Goodrich v. PendletonNew York Court of Chancery · 1818