Supreme Court of Alabama, 1898

Hallmark v. Hopper

Supreme Court of Alabama · Decided July 1, 1898 · McClellan

119 Ala. 78

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Usher (Ala. 1933)
Ex Parte Kelen (Ala. 1931)
New York Evening Post Co. v. Chaloner (2d Cir. 1920)
Huckaby v. Jackson (Ala. Ct. App. 1918)
Manistee Mill Co. v. Hobdy (Ala. 1909)
Steiner Bros. v. Stewart (Ala. 1901)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

McCLELLAN, J.

There can be no question but that a suit brought in .the name of A B “agent for C D” is the suit of A B , and not of O D, and that the Avords “agent for C D” are merely personally descriptive of A B and superfluous. It is equally clear that an amendment by Avhich such action would be made to stand in the name of G D as plaintiff would work an entire change of party plaintiff, and is, therefore, not allowable. And this rule against amendments operating a change of the sole party plaintiff applies to actions be-, gun before justices of the peace and brought by appeal into circuit courts. — Davis Avenue Railroad Co. v. Mallon, 57 Ala. 168.

Judgment being rendered in such case in favor of A B agent for G D, the fact that defendants execute an appeal bond reciting a judgment in favor of G D does *80not make it a judgment in favor of C D, nor make C D the party plaintiff in the circuit court, nor justify an amendment of the complaint filed in that court in the name of A B agent for C D — that is, in the name of A B —substituting C U for A B as the sole party plaintiff. Sossman v. Price, 57 Ala. 204.

Reversed and remanded.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.