Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/523

 209 U.S. Oinion of She Court. bury v. Buckn, 134 U.S. 650, where the next friend consented that a case on a writ of error might be heard in some other grand division of the Supreme Court of Illinois than the one in which it was decided, and at a term of that court earlier than such writ of error could ordinarily be heard, and also waived the execution of an appeal bond by the opposite party, it was held :hat the infant was bound by such action, the court ying (p. 680): "Now it is contended that the Supreme Court of the State, sitting in the Central Grand Division, could not, except by consent, entertain jurisdiction of those appeals, and that the next friend and guardian ad l/tern was incapable, in law, of giving such consent. It is u,oubtedly the rule in Illinois, as elsewhere, that a next friend or guardian ad l/tern cannot, by admissions or stipulations, surrender the rights of the infant. The court, whoe duty it is to protect' the interests of the in- rant, should see to it that they are not bargained away by those suming or appointed to represent him. But this vale does not prevent a guardian ad l/ton or prochein amy from assenting to such arrangements as will facilitate the determination of the case in which the rights of the infant are involved." U.S. 451, where the question was whether the infant was bound by a consent decree, it was said (p. 462): "That infants are bound by a consent decree is affirmed by the authorities, and this notwithstanding that it does not ap- pear that a prior inquiry was made by the court as to whether it was for their benefit. In 1 Dan. Ch. PI. & Pt. 163, it is s.id: 'Although the cour usually will not, where infants are con- cerned, make a decree by consent, without an inquiry whether it is for their benefit, yet when once a decree has been pro- nounced without that previous step, it is considered as of the same authority as if such an inqui had been directed, and a certificate thereupon made that it would be for their benefit.' "In Wakh v. Walsh, 116 Massachusetts, 377, a decree had

�