Case ID: ala_38/html/0310-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "A. J. WALKER, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FOWLKES vs. MEMPHIS & CHARLESTON RAILROAD COMPANY.
    [ACTION TO RECOVER DAMAGES EOR DEATH OF SLAVE.]
    1. Amendment of complaint. — Whero the original summons and complaint are in the name of “ C. L. F., guardian, of R. H, F.,” the complaint cannot he so amended (Code, $ 2403) as to make the plaintiff “R. H. F., ky his next friend, C. L. F.”
    Appeal from -the Circuit Court -of' Madison.
    ‘Tried before the Hon; S. D.- Hale.
    1 This action, was brought to recover damages for the loss of a slave, -who was run over and killed -by the1 defendant”» engine and cars. -The summons and complaint were in the name of Cynthia D. • Fowlkes, guardian of Ransom H. Fowlkes. The plaintiff asked leave to amend the complaint, so that the suit might run in the name of Ransom BL Fowlkes, by his next friend-, Cynthia L. Fowlkes; but the court refused to allow the amendment. This ruling of the court, to which, as the judgment entry recites, the plaintiff excepted, (though there is no bill of exceptions in the record,) is the only matter assigned as error.
    S. D. J. Moore, for appellant.
    R. C. Brickell, contra.
    
   A. J. WALKER, C. J.

In the original summons and complaint, Cynthia L. Fowlkes was the sole plaintiff, and Ransom H. Fowlkes was in no sense a party to the suit. The change proposed would have converted it into the suit of Ransom II. Fowlkes alone. The grochien amy of an infant plaintiff is not himself a plaintiff. He is but a species of attorney, who is permitted to act for the infant, so far as to conduct his suit; but his power is comprised within a very narrow compass, as he is not even authorized to receive the amount which may be recovered by the infant. — See Isaacs v. Boyd, 5 Porter, 390 ; Smith v. Redus, 9 Ala. 99; Sutherlin v. Goff, 5 Porter, 608; Hooks v. Smith, 18 Ala. 838. Our previous decisions constrain us to bold, that the amendment proposed — the striking out of tbe sole plaintiff, and tbe substitution of another person — was no.t authorized by tbe Code. — Laird v. Moore, 27 Ala. 326; Friend v. Oliver, 27 Ala. 532; Stodder v. Grant & Nickles, 28 Ala. 419.

Judgment affirmed.

R. W. YfALKER, J., not sitting.