Court Opinion

ID: 9769908
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:07:45.670512+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:09.181368
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing and to Appoint Guardian Ad Litem
CODY, Justice.
Appellant Raymond Mitchell, who1 instituted this suit under Rule 42 as a class suit, has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, and to malee the judgment of affirmance final.
The attorneys of appellants in due time filed an answer, including a motion to have a guardian ad litem appointed to represent the appellants who are not sui juris, etc.
By filing this suit, and undertaking the representation of the members of a numerous class, said appellant undertook a trust, and is bound to faithfully represent the rights which he placed in issue, and the Court will not permit such trust to fail for want of trustee. The trustees are receiving something in excess of $150,000.00 a year. If this Court was in error in its ruling, even though such sum be divided into more than four hundred parts, each person whose rights were placed in issue has a substantial interest involved here.
Under the facts of this case, it would be improper to dismiss this appeal without prejudice to the rights of the appellants who are not sui juris, until they can determine if they desire, after they become sui juris, to bring suit. And it would be equally improper not to safeguard appellants’ right to carry the case to the Supreme Court,—indeed, it would constitute error.
However, we think it improper not to permit said appellant to^ resign or withdraw from the representation of the parties belonging to the class, where this can be done without prejudice, and without inconvenience. And it is also improper to require appellants’ counsel to represent a party who wishes not to litigate further.
The motion of appellants’ counsel for the appointment of a guardian ad litem to take over the representation of the class in place of Raymond Mitchell, who' has withdrawn, is granted. And the Honorable Larry Morris of appellants’ counsel is appointed as such guardian ad litem. And in addition, and in conformity with the practice of courts of equity which will not permit a trust to fail for want of a trustee, we name the said Morris to be trustee with the power to conduct this litigation to a conclusion. We have taken into consideration that Raymond Mitchell was acting as representative of the class without compensation, and have concluded that the fee which should be paid to the said Morris should only be a nominal one and fix same at the sum of $50.00.
It is further ordered that this litigation proceed under its present style,—■ that is, without injection of the confusion which would ensue by expunging the name of Raymond Mitchell.
The appellants who remain parties to this appeal, acting through their attorneys of record, have duly filed and prosecuted their motion for rehearing. The same has been duly considered and is refused.