Case ID: del_22/html/0287-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Spruance, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Thomas H. King and Grace King, d. b. a., vs. Thomas Tyler, for the use of Charles K. Murphy, now for the use of John Murphy, p. b. r.
    
      Justice of the Peace—Certiorari—Party Plaintiff—Promissory Note—Suit by a person Having No Apparent Legal Interest in the Note—Pleading—Practice.
    
    An action can not be maintained when brought by a plaintiff who has no apparent legal interest in the cause of action,
    
      (April 17, 1907.)
    Judges Spruance and Boyce, sitting.
    
      Robert C. White for plaintiff in error.
    
      Woodburn Martin for defendant in error.
    Superior Court, Sussex County,
    April Term, 1907. Certiorari.
    The record of the Justice set out the following promissory note:
    “22.50 Georgetown, Del. Aug. 22, 1903.
    Twelve months after date I promise to pay to the order of Thomas Taylor twenty-two 50-100 dollars without defalcation. Value received. Payable at the First National Bank at Georgetown. This note is binding on our separate estate.
    P. O. Georgetown, Del. Thomas H. King
    Grace King.”
    Indorsements on Back of Note:
    “Thomas Taylor.”
    “For value received I hereby assign, and transfer, set over this note to Maj. John Murphy and guarantee same, February 27, 1904. C. K. Murphy.”
    The exceptions relied upon were as follows:
    
      1. For that suit is brought in the name of Thomas Tyler when the said Thomas Tyler has no legal interest in the cause of action as filed.
    2. For that suit is brought in the name of the wrong party plaintiff, as appears by the promisory note filed which constitutes, the cause of action.
   Spruance, J.:

Let the judgment below be reversed.