Collins v. Gillespy

Collins v. Gillespy. Petition by Minor to Have Glorie and Register Poaj to Her Money Collected on Judgment in Her Favor. (Decided June 30th, 1906. 41 So. Rep. 930.) Infants; Judgment in Favor of; Who may Receive Paym'enl. — Neither the next friend, by whom an infant sues, nor the attorney of record, has authority to receive payment of a judgment in favor of the infant, and enter satisfaction of the judgment. Only the regularly qualified guardian can do so. Appeal from Birmingham. City Court. Heard before Hon. Charles A. Senn. Action by Mamie Collins, an infant, by her next friend, against John S. Gillespy, as clerk of the city court of the city of Birmingham. From a judgment sustaining demurrers to the petition, plaintiff appeals. Mamie Collins, a minor, by her next friend and father, recovered judgment in the Birmingham city court against the Birmingham Railway Light & Power Co. for the sum of $25 and the costs of the suit. This amount together with the costs, was paid to the clerk and register of the city court. The next friend and also the attorney of record for the next friend made demand upon the clerk and register for the said sum of $25, and, upon his refusal to pay the same over to either of them, the next friend filed a petition seeking to secure an order from the judge of the court requiring the payment of said sum to the next friend. The petition alleges the above facts. The clerk and register answered said petition, admitting all the allegations therein contained, but alleged that he was advised by counsel that as such clerk and register he cannot legally pay over the money in his hand to any one except the general guardian of the minor. He also filed demurrers raising this same question. The demurrers were sustained. Ward & Hrennan, for appellant. — The next friend was entitled to receive the damages in this case and enter satisfaction of the judgment. — Thompson v. Maw-irell Land Go., 10 Sup.. Ct. Rep. 121; Belliveau v. Amoskeuy, 10 Atl. Rep. 234; Tripp v. Gifford, 155 Mass. 100; Jones v. Bieblc\, 76 Mu. 324; Baltimore R. R. Co. v. Fitzpatrick, 31 Md. 619; Collins v. Brooks, 4 IT. & N. 270. J. H Gijj.iispie, pro se. [MAJORITY — DENSON, J.] DENSON, J. — “It is the general rule that no one but a regularly qualified guardian of an infant has authority to receive paymen t, and enter satisfaction of a judg ment recovered in favoi of such infant, and that a nexc ■friend has no such authority.” And although there are authorities which seem to take the contrary, view, this court has decided that a next friend has no such au thority.—Isaac v. Boyd, 5 Port. 388; Smith v. Redus, 9 Ala. 99, 44 Am. Dec. 429; 17 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law (2d Ed.) p. 859, and cases in note 10. See, also, with respect of the office of a prochem ami, the following cases: Thomason v. Gray, 84 Ala. 559, 4 South. 394; Cook v. Adams, 27 Ala. 294.; Cooper v. Maclin’s Heirs, 25 Ala. 299; Riddle v. Hanna, 25 Ala. 484; Klaus v. State, 54 Miss. 644; Mitchell v. Connolly, 1 Bailey (S. C.) 203. If the nest friend has not the authority to receive payment or enter satisfaction, it follows logically tli at an attorney who derives the only authority he has from the nest friend is not clothed with such authority. There is no error in the record, and the judgment of the court must be affirmed. Weakley, O. J., and Haralson and Dowdell, JJ.. concur.