In Freeman v. Jergins (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 536, defendant attempted to examine a person named Troutman as if under cross-examination. Plaintiff objected to the attempt on the ground that Troutman was not a person for whose immediate benefit the action was prosecuted. The trial court sustained the objection. The court upheld the lower court's action and stated: ". . . Troutman, having stood by and acquiesced in everything that plaintiff did, could in no event have a claim for more than one-half of whatever plaintiff might receive, and this claim, as we say, would be against plaintiff rather than defendants. . . . Since the rights of Troutman were limited as above set forth and he had no claim upon defendants, the court properly held that he was not a party for whose immediate benefit the action was prosecuted . . . . The action was not for the enforcement of any claim of Troutman against the defendants." ( Id., at p. 559.) The court found that, although plaintiff's action would benefit Troutman because of his claim against the plaintiff, the action was not prosecuted for Troutman's immediate benefit.