Fulton v. Rosevelt
New York Court of Chancery
On an affidavit that the procMen amy was insolvent, and that the suit had been commenced by him without the knowledge of the infant, a motion was made on the part of the defendant to change the procMen amy, or that all proceedings be stayed until security for costs was given.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor :—It is not necessary for the person prosecuting a suit in the name of infants, to show that the same was commenced with their knowledge or consent. Any person may bring a suit in their name, as their next friend, because he does it at his peril. (Andrews v. Cadock, Prec. in Chan. 376.) The only check upon this general license *is, that on a proper application the court will refer it to a master to inquire whether such suit is for the benefit of the infants; and if the master reports that it is not for their benefit, or that it is not for their interest that it should be…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Averill v. LoucksNew York Supreme Court · 1849
- Thomas v. LinnWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1894
- Whiting v. ButlerMichigan Supreme Court · 1874
- Hoy v. BramhallSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1868
- In Re LuftmanDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1965
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.