Illinois Central Railroad v. Hunter

70 Miss. 471
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1892
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 70 Miss. 471 (Illinois Central Railroad v. Hunter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Illinois Central Railroad v. Hunter, 70 Miss. 471 (Mich. 1892).

Opinion

Campbell, C. J\,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Section 193 of the constitution of 1890 gives to an employe of a railroad corporation a right of action in certain states of case specifically defined by it, and, where death ensues, gives a right of action to the “ legal or personal representatives ” of the person injured.

We think a fireman on an engine and a telegraph operator [477]*477are engaged in different departments of labor, or “ about a different piece of .work,” in the meaning of the constitution. An action for an injury resulting in death, based on the constitutional provision mentioned, must be brought by the executor or administrator of the decedent. The primary meaning of the term “ legal or personal representative,” is the executor or administrator, and there is nothing in the constitution to suggest that they were used in a different sense in the section.under consideration. The constitution does not give the right of action it creates to parent or child or husband or wife, but to the executor or administrator.

Because the plaintiffs hace no right of action, the judgment is reversed, and cause remanded.

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

Related

Sealy v. Goddard
910 So. 2d 502 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2005)
Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Lenahan
1913 OK 564 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Denver & Rio Grande Railroad v. Vitello
21 Colo. App. 51 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1912)
Fithian v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co.
188 F. 842 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Arkansas, 1911)
Mobile, Jackson & Kansas City Railroad v. Hicks
46 So. 360 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1907)
Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad v. Washington
45 So. 614 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1907)
Bussey v. Gulf & Ship Island Railroad
79 Miss. 597 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1901)
Illinois Central Railroad v. Woolley
77 Miss. 927 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1900)
Illinois Cent. R. v. Ihlenberg
75 F. 873 (Sixth Circuit, 1896)
White v. Louisville, New Orleans & Texas Railway Co.
72 Miss. 12 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1894)
Stone v. Groton Bridge & Manufacturing Co.
28 N.Y.S. 446 (New York Supreme Court, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
70 Miss. 471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/illinois-central-railroad-v-hunter-miss-1892.