Drew v. Milwaukee & St. P. R.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota

Drew v. Milwaukee & St. P. R.

7 F. Cas. 1071, 5 Chi. Leg. News 314

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota

DecidedMarch 15, 1873

StatusPublished

This text of 7 F. Cas. 1071 (Drew v. Milwaukee & St. P. R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Drew v. Milwaukee & St. P. R., 7 F. Cas. 1071, 5 Chi. Leg. News 314 (circtdmn 1873).

Pincite

Opinion

DILLON, Circuit Judge.

This is an action by the father to recover damages for the loss of services of his infant daughter, who is alleged to have immediately died by reason of the tortious conduct of the defendant’s servants. Where death has thus ensued, it is a settled principle of the common law that no such action can be maintained. This principle is so well known, and has been so often declared, that it is not necessary to enter upon a review or discussion of the cases. Carey v. Berkshire R. Co., 1 Cush. 475; Green v. Hudson River R. Co., 2 Keys (*41 N. Y.) 294; Id., 28 Barb. 9; Pack v. Mayor, etc., of New York, 3 Comst. [3 N. Y.] 493; Eden v. Lexington & F. R. Co., 14 B. Mon. 165; Hyatt v. Adams, 10 Mich. 180. In this last case it is held that where the death of the person injured does not at once ensue, a person entitled to the service of the one injured may recover for such damages as accrued up to the time of the death, but not for damages caused by reason of such death. See, also. Sherman v. Western Stage Co., 24 Iowa, 510.

The principle above mentioned is so in-veterately rooted in the common law, as Judicially declared in England and in this country, as to preclude any inquiry by the courts into its policy or wisdom. It is, perhaps, difficult to defend it at this day; and hence in both countries the common law has, in this respect, been modified by legislation. So far, then, as any right of recovery exists where death has immediately ensued from the injury complained of, it is by virtue of express enactment. The statute of Minnesota provides, that “where death is caused by the wrongful act or omission of any party, the personal representatives of the deceased may maintain an action, if he might have maintained an action, had he lived, for an injury caused by the same act or omission.” Gen. St. p. 546, § 2. If an action can be maintained, it must be by virtue of this statute, and this gives the remedy to the personal representative of the deceased, that is, to his administrator or executor. Boutiller v. The Milwaukee, 8 Minn. 97 [Gil. 72]. Demurrer sustained.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DILLON, Circuit Judge.

This is an action by the father to recover damages for the loss of services of his infant daughter, who is alleged to have immediately died by reason of the tortious conduct of the defendant’s servants. Where death has thus ensued, it is a settled principle of the common law that no such action can be maintained. This principle is so well known, and has been so often declared, that it is not necessary to enter upon a review or discussion of the cases. Carey v. Berkshire R. Co., 1 Cush. 475; Green v. Hudson River R. Co., 2 Keys (*41 N. Y.) 294; Id., 28 Barb. 9; Pack v. Mayor, etc., of New York, 3 Comst. [3 N. Y.] 493; Eden v. Lexington & F. R. Co., 14 B. Mon. 165; Hyatt v. Adams, 10 Mich. 180. In this last case it is held that where the death of the person injured does not at once ensue, a person entitled to the service of the one injured may recover for such damages as accrued up to the time of the death, but not for damages caused by reason of such death. See, also. Sherman v. Western Stage Co., 24 Iowa, 510.

The principle above mentioned is so in-veterately rooted in the common law, as Judicially declared in England and in this country, as to preclude any inquiry by the courts into its policy or wisdom. It is, perhaps, difficult to defend it at this day; and hence in both countries the common law has, in this respect, been modified by legislation. So far, then, as any right of recovery exists where death has immediately ensued from the injury complained of, it is by virtue of express enactment. The statute of Minnesota provides, that “where death is caused by the wrongful act or omission of any party, the personal representatives of the deceased may maintain an action, if he might have maintained an action, had he lived, for an injury caused by the same act or omission.” Gen. St. p. 546, § 2. If an action can be maintained, it must be by virtue of this statute, and this gives the remedy to the personal representative of the deceased, that is, to his administrator or executor. Boutiller v. The Milwaukee, 8 Minn. 97 [Gil. 72]. Demurrer sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 F. Cas. 1071, 5 Chi. Leg. News 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drew-v-milwaukee-st-p-r-circtdmn-1873.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack