Nash v. Tousley

8 N.W. 875, 28 Minn. 5, 1881 Minn. LEXIS 182
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedMay 6, 1881
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 8 N.W. 875 (Nash v. Tousley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Nash v. Tousley, 8 N.W. 875, 28 Minn. 5, 1881 Minn. LEXIS 182 (Mich. 1881).

Opinion

Berry, J.

“A cause of action arising out of an injury to the person dies with the person of either party, except as provided in the next section.” Gen. St. 1878, c. 77, § 1. “When 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; but the action shall be commenced within two years after the act or omission by which the death was caused. The. dam[6]*6ages thereon cannot exceed $5,000, and the amount recovered is to be for the exclusive benefit of the widow and next of kin, to be distributed to them in the same proportions as the personal property of the deceased person.” Id. § 2. The right of action thus given was wholly unknown to our law before the passage of these provisions of statute. It is, therefore, altogether a creature of the statute, and must be enforced (if at all) as the statute enacts, and not otherwise. The action to enforce it must, therefore, be brought by the “personal representatives of the deceased” — that is to say, by his executor or administrator. Atkinson v. Duffy, 16 Minn. 45, and authorities cited; Jones v. Tainter, 15 Minn. 512; Abbott’s Law Dict. “Represent.”

Order affirmed.

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

Related

Shaira Mattingly v. American Family Insurance, Kathleen Plasch
6 N.W.3d 787 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2024)
Loegering v. County of Todd
185 F. Supp. 134 (D. Minnesota, 1960)
Cashman v. Hedberg
10 N.W.2d 388 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1943)
Pueblo v. Betancourt
28 P.R. Dec. 854 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1920)
Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Lenahan
1913 OK 564 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Fithian v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co.
188 F. 842 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Arkansas, 1911)
Aho v. Jesmore
112 N.W. 538 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1907)
Swift & Co. v. Johnson
138 F. 867 (Eighth Circuit, 1905)
Harshman v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
103 N.W. 412 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1905)
Major v. Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway Co.
88 N.W. 815 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1902)
St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Needham
52 F. 371 (Eighth Circuit, 1892)
Scheffler v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.
19 N.W. 656 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1884)
Rugland v. Anderson
15 N.W. 676 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1883)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 N.W. 875, 28 Minn. 5, 1881 Minn. LEXIS 182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nash-v-tousley-minn-1881.