GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

From: Kay Allen AG <>
Subject: Re: ages of plaintiffs
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1990 17:56:38 -0800

I believe that to sue you would have had to have been of age. I know
that a suit in which the defendant was in minority was held over until
(s)he was of age.

Kay Allen AG

k1w1k wrote:
>
> Ten days or so ago, I posted a request for a judgment as to whether all
> the plaintiffs in a 1566 Exchequer suit would necessarily have been
> adult. Specifically: the plaintiffs were a husband and wife, and their
> son, and my question was -- need the son necessarily have been of age, or
> would the fact that the bone of contention was control of land previously
> granted to ALL THREE (that is, I think, to the parents, with entail to
> the son) have justified (and allowed) naming the son, along with his
> parents, as co-plaintiff, even if he were still a child?
>
> I can't be sure whether anyone responded or not, as I was then accessing
> this forum via deja; which, it eventually became clear, was NOT listing
> all messages posted. (I know, because two of my own, tho' replied to in
> posts I DID see, either never became available via deja at all, or did,
> but later disappeared.)
>
> If anyone did reply to my 'plaintiff' post, would you be good enough to
> send it to me via private email (so as not to annoy everyone with a
> re-post)? If not, my question still stands ...
>
>

This thread:

• Re: ages of plaintiffs by Kay Allen AG <>