delivered the opinion of the court.
This wаs a bill in equity, filed in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas, by “ J. E. Potter, guardian of Robert Morgan, a resident and citizen of the State of Kentucky and county of Warren, and Sarah Lee Williams, as next friend of said Robert, a resident and citizen of the same cоunty and State,” “ against Ilenry Morgan, guardian of *196 said Robert, and Jacob Campbell and M. A. Arnott, all of whom are residents and citizens of the county of Ottawa and State of Kansas,” to set aside the appointment, by a court of the county of Ottawa and State оf Kansas, of Henry Morgan as guardian of the estate of Robert, as having been obtained by false and fraudulent representatiоns that Robert’s residence was in that county and that his mother consented to the appointment ; and to require him to account for the property of his ward, fraudulently omitted in the inventory and accounts filed by him in that court, and to turn over all the ward’s property to Potter as his guardian appointed in the county of Warren and State of Kentucky; and to obtain judgment against him, and against Camрbell and Arnott as sureties upon his guardianship bond, for the sums found due; and for further relief.
Robert Morgan, described in the bill as “ a non-resident of ” the State of Kansas, was the minor son of Joseph Morgan and Sarah Lee Morgan, his wife, who, as the bill alleged, after the fathеr’s death in Texas in 1883, moved with her infant son to the State of Kansas, and thence, in October, 1886, to Warren County in the State of Kentucky, and since continually resided there with him, and in February, 1887, was there married to one Williams, a resident of that county.
The principal defendаnt, Henry Morgan, was appointed February 14, 1887, by the probate court of the county of Ottawa in the State of Kansas, guardian of thе estate of Robert Morgan, and took an oath and gave bond as such, and after-wards filed in that court an inventory and annual аccounts, which he claimed to be true, and which were not excepted to in that court, nor their correctness otherwisе challenged by the ward or by any one acting in his behalf; he was not shown to have failed or refused to comply with any order of thаt court in relation to his guardianship; and, when this bill was filed, the minor’s estate was undergoing administration in that court, and no final. settlement-or аccounting had been had there between the guardian and the ward. The other defendants were the sureties on the guardianship bоnd.
The plaintiffs were Potter, and the mother of Robert Mor *197 gan. Potter sued as his guardian, appointed,' as the bill alleged, by a court of the county of Warren in the State of Kentucky, having jurisdiсtion of his person and estate, with the consent of his mother and her husband. His mother sued as his next friend.
The case was heard in the Circuit Cоurt of the United States for the District of Kansas upon pleadings and proofs, and a decree entered for the plaintiff. The dеfendants appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which made a certificate to this court, setting forth the abovе facts, and others not material to be here stated, and requesting the instruction of this court upon several questions.
The. first question certified is, “ Does the foregoing bill of complaint state a case entitling the complainants named therein, or either of thеm, to any form of relief in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas?”
The authority of a guardian, like that of an executor or administrator, appointed by a court of one State, is limited to that State, and he cannot sue in a court, even of thе United States, held within any other State, except so far as authorized -•to do so by its laws.
Hoyt
v.
Sprague,
It is equally clear that the other plaintiff, the minor’s mother, suing as his next friend, cannot maintain this bill. As said by Lord Somers, “ An infant may by
\m prochein ami
call his guardian to an account.”
Falkland
v.
Bertie,
2 Veruon, 333, 342. It is the infant, and not the next friend, who is the real and proper party. The next friend, by whom the suit is brought on behalf of the infant, is neither technically nor substantially the party, but resembles an attorney, or a guardiаn
ad litem,
by whom a suit is brought or defended in behalf of another. The suit must be brought in the name of the infant, and not in that of the next friend.
Crandall
v.
Slaid,
11 Met, 288;
Guild
v.
Cranston,
As upon this record, in thе condition in which it has been sent up, neither of the plaintiffs is entitled to maintain this suit, the first question certified must be. answered in the negative, and it becomes unnecessary to answer any of the other questions certified.
Ordered accordingly.
Sec. 3218. When a minor for whom a’guardian has been аppointed in this State shall remove to another State or Territory, and a guardian of such infant shall be there appointed, the guardian appointed in this State *198 may be discharged, and required to settle his account, as hereinafter provided.
Seс. 3249. Such discharge shall not be. made, unless the guardian appointed in another State or Territory shall apply 'to the probate court in this State which made th'e former appointment, and file therein an exemplification of the record of the сourt making the foreign appointment containing'all the entries and proceedings in relation to his appointment and his giving of bond, with a copy thereof and of the letters of guardianship, all authenticated as required by the act of Congress in that behalf ; and *199 before such application shall be heard, or any action talcen therein by the court, at least thirty days’ written noticе shall be served on the guardian appointed in this State, specifying the object of the application, and the time when thе same will be heard : Provided further, that the court may in any case deny the application, unless satisfied that the discharge of the guardian appointed in this State would be to the interest of the ward.