
    
      Keziah P. Shuttlesworth vs. Joseph Hughey.
    
    An infant plaintiff, suing by procliein amy, may after he arrives at full ago carry on the action in his own name, and no amendment of his declaration is necessary: a suggestion on the record, that he has attained to full age, is sufficient.
    
      Before Glover, J., at Union, Spring Term, 1853.
    The report of his Honor, the presiding Judge, is as follows:
    
      “ The plaintiff, then an infant, sued out her writ in trespass to try titles, by Joseph Shuttlesworth, her father and procliein amy. Leave having been granted to amend her declaration, and the plaintiff having attained to her majority, the amended declaration was filed in her own name. To this amended declaration the defendant demurred, and for a cause of demurrer showed : £ That the original writ in this case was sued out in the name of Keziah P. Shuttlesworth, a minor, who sues by her father, Joseph Shuttlesworth, as her next friend or guardian, of a plea wherefore and so forth, as appears by said writ of which the said defendant craves oyer, and that the said amended declaration is filed in the name of Keziah P. Shuttlesworth alone, and not by her next friend or guardian, the said Joseph Shut-tlesworth.’
    
      “ Regarding the amended declaration as a departure from the writ, the presiding Judge sustained the demurrer. A motion was then made to amend the declaration and make it conform to the writ by inserting the name of the prochein amy: but this was refused, because if the plaintiff be now of age, the prochein mny is necessarily superseded, and the strange anomaly would be presented of a plaintiff sui juris prosecuting her action in the name of her next friend.
    “ Reflection has induced me to doubt the correctness of my judgment in sustaining the demurrer. An infant plaintiff coming of age is no abatement of his action, but he may elect whether he will proceed or not. If he proceed with his cause, all subsequent proceedings may be carried on in his own name, and no amendment, for that purpose, would be necessary. Such is the practice adopted in the Court of Chancery.
    “It might be proper to suggest on the record, that the plaintiff had attained to his majority and elected to proceed in his cause.”
    The plaintiff appealed on the grounds :
    1. Because the amended declaration of the plaintiff, was good and sufficient in law, and his Honor should have ordered the demurrer filed by the defendant to be overruled.
    2. Because the plaintiff should have been permitted to amend her declaration if necessary.
    Thomson, for the motion.
    
      Herndon & Gist, contra.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Glover, J.

In an action at law, where an infant is the plaintiff, the process is generally sued out in his name, but he cannot prosecute it in person. For that purpose a prochein amy, or guardian, must be admitted by the Court to prosecute it for him and to protect his rights. No right‘of parentage or guardianship will enable any one to act for the infant without the appointment of the Court. If an infant plaintiff, pending the suit, shall attain full age, he is generally permitted to stop the proceedings whether he is sole or co-plaintiff with others. The action does not abate when he is of age, and he can elect, whether he will proceed or not. If he shall continue to prosecute his action, the subsequent proceedings may be carried on in his own name ; and no amendment of his declaration is necessary for that purpose. A suggestion on the record, that he has attained to full age, is sufficient.

The order of the Circuit Judge, sustaining the demurrer, is, therefore, set aside, and the demurrer is overruled.

O’Neall, Wardlaw, Frost, Withers and Whitner, JJ., concurred.

Motion granted.  