Case ID: mass_99/html/0460-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Foster, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Felix F. Petitcler vs. George S. Willis.
    In an action pending in the superior court, in which the .plaintiff of record disclaims the use of his name, and which is continued in court only on the assumption that another person is entitled to sue in such plaintiff’s name to enforce a claim belonging equitably to himself, an order for an indorser may properly be directed to such other person.
    The right of the superior court, under the Gen. Sts. c. 129, § 29, to require the plaintiff, in any case pending therein, to procure an indorser, is not subject to revision by this court.
    Appeal from the disallowance of exceptions by the superior court. This was an action of tort against the former sheriff of Berkshire, prosecuted in the superior court by John C. Wolcott, (assuming to be attorney for the nominal plaintiff,) who placed an indorsement upon the writ before service, directing the defendant to “take notice that the claim and demand in this case belongs to John C. Wolcott, and no other person holds any right or interest in the same.” It appeared further by the record that the plaintiff of record filed a disclaimer of the use of his name and a denial of Wolcott’s authority to act as his attorney, and the court ordered Wolcott to furnish an indorser of the writ other than himself, to the satisfaction of the clerk, within a certain time, and that the action should be dismissed if this should not be done; that the time elapsed without the compliance of Wolcott with the order ; and that the action was dismissed accordingly, to which dismissal he alleged exceptions, which the court disallowed.
    
      J C. Wolcott, pro se.
    
    
      J. M. Barker, (T. P. Pingree with him,) for the defendant.
   Foster, J.

The order to furnish an indorser was properly directed to Wolcott, the real party in interest, by whom alone the suit was prosecuted. The nominal plaintiff had upon the record disclaimed Wolcott’s right to use his name, and the action could be continued in court only upon the assumption that Wolcott was, as he claimed to be, entitled to use the name of the record plaintiff to enforce a claim equitably belonging to himself.

The court in its discretion may in any case require an indorser, and the propriety of the exercise of such discretion cannot be revised by this court. Gen. Sts. c. 129, §§ 29, 32.

Judgment dismissing the action affirmed.