RUSSELL CARLTON, A MINOR, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, W. H. SIMMONS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
C. C. MORGAN, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a directed verdict against a minor plaintiff, holding that the minor, suing by his guardian as next friend, was the real party in interest and that the guardian could collect any judgment obtained.
Yes, the trial court erred. The minor is the real party in interest, and the guardian, acting as next friend, can collect a judgment obtained in the ward's name.
“The court on motion of the defendant directed a verdict for the defendant on the ground “that the plaintiff has not proven his title to the fund in the controversy.””
describes the trial court's action that was appealed.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn action was brought by a guardian for a minor against the defendant. After an amended declaration named the minor as plaintiff suing by his next fri…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Assumpsit cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
An action of assumpsit was brought by W. EL Simmons, as guardian for Russell Carlton, against C. C. Morgan. A demurrer to the declaration was filed, one of the grounds of the demurrer being that “the said suit should be brought in the name of Russell Carlton, and not W. EE. Simmons, if Carlton is the proper party.” An amended declaration was filed making the party plaintiff “Russell Carlton by W. H. Simmons his next friend.” Appropriate amendments of the process were made. A plea of never was indebted was filed. There was positive evidence that the indebtedness of the defendant was the property of the plaintiff, a minor, and that the minor’s next friénd in this action is the minor’s guardian. The court on motion of the defendant directed a verdict for the defendant on the ground “that the plaintiff has not proven his title to the fund in the controversy.” This was error. Even if the defendant is not estopped, in challenging by demurrer the right of the guardian to maintain the action, from contesting the right of the plaintiff to maintain the action in his own name by next friend, the minor is the real party in interest, suing by next friend, who is his guardian, and the guardian may collect a judgment obtained in the name of the ward.
The judgment is reversed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur. ;
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morgan v. Russell Carlton by his next friend, 73 Fla. 895 (Fla. 1917)…Per Curiam. On a former writ of error herein a judgment fpr the defendant on a directed verdict was reversed. Carlton v. Morgan, 68 Fla. 535, 67 South. Rep. 79. After the cause was remanded S. J. Carlton was made a party plaintiff as the next friend of the minor plaintiff Russell Carlton in the place of W. H. Simmons who had died. There was judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant t…