Almack, an Infant, by G. Knox, His Next Friend v Moore

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 20 February 1878
• Date: 20 February 1878
• Court: Exchequer Division (Ireland)

Ex. Div.

ALMACK, AN INFANT, BY G. KNOX, HIS NEXT FRIEND

and

MOORE.

AnonENR 4 Madd. 461.

Witt v. Ames 11 W. R. 751.

Morgan v. ThorneENR 7 M. & W. 400.

Sinclair v. SinclairENR 13 M. & W. 640.

Staines v. Maddon Mos. R. 319.

Stone v. MarchENR 1 Bulstr. 24.

Swain v. SenateUNK 2 B. & P. N. R. 99.

Gould v. Davis 1 C. & Jer. 415.

Brown v. WeatherheadENR 4 Hare, 122.

Dunn v. DunnENR 7 De G. M. & G. 25.

Brown v. BrownENR 11 Beav. 562.

Swift v. Grazebrook 13 Simon, 185.

Francis v. WebbENR 7 C. B. 731.

Practice Infant Next friend

90 LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. R. L Appeal. sent with goods which were ordered, in one consignment and in one 1878. invoice, if there is any danger or risk to the purchaser that by TARLING accepting the portion ordered he may be held liable to pay for the O'RIORDAN. portion not ordered, he is entitled to reject both. That is exactly the case here ; the goods ordered and the goods which were not ordered were sent in the same bale and included in the same invoice. I, therefore, concur in the decision of the Court. Judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench reversed, and _venlictÂÂentered for the Defendant. Solicitors for the Plaintiff : W. G. Bradley 83. Son. Solicitors for the Defendant: E. O'Connor Son. Div. A INA CK, AN INFANT, BY G. KNOX, HIS NEXT FRIEND, V. Practice-Infant-Next friend-Rule to change attorney of-Nolle prosequi. The attorney acting for an infant Plaintiff suing by his next friend is the attorney of the next friend, and a rule to change him cannot be entered without the authority of the next friend ; and where such a rule was entered, the Court, at• the instance of the next friend, set it aside. MoTioN, on behalf of the next friend of the infant Plaintiff, that the rule to change the Plaintiff's attorney and appoint a new one in his stead should be set aside, and that the voile prosequi entered by the new attorney should be taken off the file, upon the grounds, amongst others, that the rule and none prosequi were entered collusively by the Infant and the Defendant, for the purÂÂpose of depriving the next friend and his solicitor of the costs of the action, and also for the purpose of making the next friend_ liable for the costs of the action. The action was brought on behalf of the infant Plaintiff by his next friend, for libel and breach of contract, and was tried before THE LORD CHIEF BARON at the Sittings after Trinity Term, 1877, when a verdict was directed for the Defendant, with liberty to the Plaintiff to move to have a verdict entered for him on the counts for libel, with 5 damages. A conditional order having been obtained in pursuance of the leave reserved, the Defendant on the 9th of November showed cause, and the case was argued on the 19th of November, when the Court YOL. II.] Q. B., C. P., & EX. DIVISIONS. 91 took time to consider their judgment, which was delivered on the Ex. Div. 7 26th of November, when the conditional order to enter the verdict 18 8. for the Plaintiff, with 5 damages, was made absolute, with costs. AMUCK V. On the 19th of November a rule, entitled in the cause, was, without the authority of the next friend, entered to change the Plaintiff's attorney and to appoint a new one in his stead ; and on the same day a...