holding that real parties in interest had ratified the action under 17(a
How later courts described this case
- holding that real parties in interest had ratified the action under 17(a
- stating that the purported assignment of individual plaintiffs' personal injury claims to their employer, a co- plaintiff, “was contrary to public policy and ineffective....”
- holding that real parties in interest had ratified the action under 17(a) where they "indicated in writing that they agreed to be made parties, that they ratified and adopted the proceedings up to that point[,] and that they agreed to be bound by the judgment in the case"
- purported assignment of personal injury claim deemed ineffective under common law as against public policy and not allowed under Section 1-57
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Judge Hedrick
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the result of that part of the majority decision that affirms the judgment directing a verdict for the defendant with respect to the claim of plaintiff, Southern Railway. I dissent, however, from that part of the decision that reverses the judgment directing a verdict for the defendant with respect to the cases of the additional plaintiffs, Williams, Cloer, and Ussery. In my opinion, where the additional plaintiffs have assigned their claims to their employer, and the majority has declared the original plaintiff, employer, not to be a real party in interest, and where the record affirmatively discloses that these employees, additional plaintiffs, have been paid by their employer for the precise claims that they undertook to assign and for which they now seek to recover from the defendant, the trial court correctly directed a verdict for the defendant.