Tom Reed Gold Mines Co. v. George

Arizona Supreme Court

Tom Reed Gold Mines Co. v. George

188 P. 130, 21 Ariz. 303, 1920 Ariz. LEXIS 110

CourtArizona Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 22, 1920

DocketCivil No. 1758

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 188 P. 130 (Tom Reed Gold Mines Co. v. George) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arizona Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tom Reed Gold Mines Co. v. George, 188 P. 130, 21 Ariz. 303, 1920 Ariz. LEXIS 110 (Ark. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case was tried to a jury in the superior court of Mohave county on April 22, 1919, and resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $5,000. The action was commenced hy J. A. George, administrator of the estate of Mart R. Smith, deceased, and the complaint, after alleging the appointment and qualifications of the plaintiff as such administrator, further alleges that the deceased died from the effects of injuries re[304]*304ceived in falling down a manway while engaged in work as a miner in the defendant’s mine, and that the accident was one arising ont of, and in the course of, the employment of said deceased by the defendant, and was due to a condition or conditions of his employment. It will thus be seen that the action was based on the employers’ liability law of the state. Rev. Stats. 1913, c. 6. The undisputed evidence clearly shows that the deceased, Mart R. Smith, was unmarried and left no wife or children him surviving. It also clearly appears that his mother survived him, and was living at the time of the commencement of the action, and, so far as the record shows, is still alive. Some doubt exists as to whether his father is living. This being so, the action cannot be maintained by the plaintiff as the administrator of the estate of the deceased. It can only be maintained by the mother of the deceased or by his mother and father jointly, if the father is still alive. The point has been definitely settled by this court in the case of Bryan v. Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co., 20 Ariz. 485, 181 Pac. 577. That case is con-elusive of the present one.

It follows that the judgment of the lower court must be, and the same is hereby, reversed for further proceeding not inconsistent with this decision.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case was tried to a jury in the superior court of Mohave county on April 22, 1919, and resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $5,000. The action was commenced hy J. A. George, administrator of the estate of Mart R. Smith, deceased, and the complaint, after alleging the appointment and qualifications of the plaintiff as such administrator, further alleges that the deceased died from the effects of injuries re[304]*304ceived in falling down a manway while engaged in work as a miner in the defendant’s mine, and that the accident was one arising ont of, and in the course of, the employment of said deceased by the defendant, and was due to a condition or conditions of his employment. It will thus be seen that the action was based on the employers’ liability law of the state. Rev. Stats. 1913, c. 6. The undisputed evidence clearly shows that the deceased, Mart R. Smith, was unmarried and left no wife or children him surviving. It also clearly appears that his mother survived him, and was living at the time of the commencement of the action, and, so far as the record shows, is still alive. Some doubt exists as to whether his father is living. This being so, the action cannot be maintained by the plaintiff as the administrator of the estate of the deceased. It can only be maintained by the mother of the deceased or by his mother and father jointly, if the father is still alive. The point has been definitely settled by this court in the case of Bryan v. Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co., 20 Ariz. 485, 181 Pac. 577. That case is con-elusive of the present one.

It follows that the judgment of the lower court must be, and the same is hereby, reversed for further proceeding not inconsistent with this decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 P. 130, 21 Ariz. 303, 1920 Ariz. LEXIS 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tom-reed-gold-mines-co-v-george-ariz-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack