An infant cannot personally prosecute an action in court. An action on his behalf must be brought either by his guardian or by a next friend.95 It is a good plea in abatement that a plaintiff who sues without a guardian or next friend is an infant.96 And if a judgment is entered against an infant plaintiff who sues without being thus represented, the judgment will not bind him.97 The practice of allowing an infant to sue by his next friend instead of by guardian is derived from an early English statute.,98 The general guardian "is usually the proper person to represent the infant plaintiff in such action. But there are frequently cases when the infant may properly sue by next friend, notwithstanding the existence of such guardian, as when the guardian is absent or is unwilling or unable to institute or prosecute the required action or appeal, and especially when, though declining to take such action himself, he does not forbid such proceeding, or when he is disqualified by interest hostile to that of the infant, or is for other reasons an improper or unsuitable person to prosecute such actions in behalf of the ward."99 Though the next friend is not appointed by the court, his authority to prosecute an action may be revoked by the court.1 The action is properly brought in the name of the infant with the statement that he is represented by a stated next friend or guardian, not in the name of such next friend or guardian.2 In most jurisdictions if an infant is sued it is the duty of his general guardian, if he has one, not adversely interested to appear and defend the action.3 If the infant has no general guardian, or if the general guardian has an adverse interest,

89Baker v. Keer, 2 Stark. 501; Mortimore v. Wright, 6 M. & W. 482; Shelton v. Springett, 11 C. B. 452; Freeman v. Robinson, 38 N. J. L. 383, 20 Am. Hep. 399.

90 On the question of the liability in any given State, of the parent to support and educate the child, see 19 Cyc. 1605, 1606. See also Tiffany on Persons, 2d ed., p. 251.

91 See supra, Sec. 225.

92Smith v. Gilbert, 80 Ark. 525. 98 S. W. 115, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1098; Lamson v. Varaum, 171 Mass. 237, 50 N. E. 615; Finn v.. Adams, 138 Mich. 258, 101 N. W. 533; Farmington v. Jones, 36 N. H. 271, 272.

93 Owen v. White, 5 Porter, 435, 30

Am. Dec. 572; Keaton v. Davis, 18 Ga. 457; Brown v. Deloach, 28 Ga. 486; Pidgin v. Cram, 8 N. H. 350; Ketchem v. Marshland, 18 N. Y. Misc. 450, 42 N. Y. S. 7; Peacock v. Linton, 22 R. I. 328, 47 Atl. 887, 53 L. R. A. 192.

94 See infra, Sec. 270, where the corresponding question as to married women is discussed.

95 1 Bl. Comm. 464; Guild v. Cranston, 8 Cush. 506; Williams v. Cleave-land, 76 Conn. 426, 56 Atl 850.

96Young v. Young, 3 N. H. 345; Taylor v. Superior Court, 30 R. I. 200, 560, 76 Atl. 644.

97 Hanlin v. Burk Bros. Co., 174 Mo. App. 462, 160 8. W. 647.

98Westminster 2d, c. 16. See Guild v. Cranston, v Cush. 506.

99 Williams v. Cleaveland, 76 Conn. 426, 432, 56 Atl. 850. See further: Hooks v. Smith, 58 Ala. 238, 29 Am. Rep. 745; Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Taylor, 6 App. Cas. (D. C.) 259; Holmes v. Field, 12 111. 424; Chudleigh v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 51 111. App. 491; Patterson v. Pullman, 104 111. 80; Deford v. State, 30 Md. 179; French v. Marshall, 136 Mass. 564; Segelken v. Meyer, 94 N. Y. 473; Rob-son v. Osboro, 13 Tex. 298; Martin v. Weyman, 26 Tex. 460; Thomas v. Dike, 11 Vt. 278, 34 Am. Dec. 690; Hicks v. Hicks, 79 Wis. 465, 470, 48 N. W. 495.

1 Guild v. Cranston, 8 Cush. 506. In this case the court stayed proceedings in a suit, brought on behalf of a minor without his consent, on the petition of the minor, being satisfied that his interests would not suffer from a delay in the suit until he attained his majority.

2 Sandeen v Tschider, 205 Fed. 252, 123 C. C. A. 456; Emeric v. Alvarado, 64 Cal. 593, 2 Pac. 418; Bradley v. Amidon, 10 Paige, 235. In Sandeen v. Tschider, supra, however, it was held that the defect could be and had been waived.

3 Nunn v. Robertson, 80 Ark. 350; Smith I. McDonald, 42 Cal. 484; Hughes v. Sellers, 34 Ind. 337; Mansur v. Pratt, 101 Mass. 60; Cowan v. Anderson, 7 Coldw. 284. In some jurisdictions it seems to be the practice to appoint a guardian ad litem in every case. See Colt v. Colt, 111 U. S. 566, 28 L. Ed. 520, 4 Sup. Ct. 553; Cowan v. Anderson, 7 Coldw. 284.

the court will appoint a guardian ad litem.4 The infant has no power to bind himself by an appearance on his own behalf, or by an attorney of his own appointment, or by a next friend; 5 and a judgment obtained against an infant without the appearance of a guardian, or guardian ad litem, is voidable;6 as is a judgment against an infant who was represented only by a guardian whose interests were adverse.7

4 O'Hara v. MacConnell, 93 U. S. 150, 23 L. Ed. 840; Conway v. Clark, 177 Ala. 90, 58 So. 441; Owens v. Gun-ther, 75 Ark. 37, 86 8. W. 851; Nicholson v. Wilborn, 13 Ga. 467; Stin-son v. Pickering, 70 Me. 273; Austin v. Trustees of the Charlestown Female Seminary, 8 Metc. 196, 41 Am. Deo. 497.

5 Frescobaldi v. Kingston, 2 Strange, 783; Nicholson v. Wilborn, 13 Ga. 467;

Marshall v. Wing, 50 Me. 62; Mitchell v. Spaulding, 206 Pa. 220, 55 Atl. 968.

6 O'Hara v. MacConnell, 93 U. S. 150, 23 L. Ed. 840; Colt v. Colt, 111 U. S. 566, 28 L. Ed. 520; Austin v. Trustees of the Charlestown Female Seminary, 8 Metc 196, 41 Am. Dec. 497; England v. Garner, 90 N. C. 197; Weaver v. Glenn, 104 Va. 443, 61 S. E. 835.

7 Pearoe v. Heyman (Tex Civ. App.), 158 8. W. 242.