Lougue v. Memphis & C. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 May 1892 |
| Parties | LOUGUE v. MEMPHIS & C. R. CO. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Shelby county; L. H. ESTES, Judge.
Action by Mattie Curry against the Memphis & Charleston Railroad Company for the negligent killing of plaintiff's husband. Plaintiff died pending the action, and John Lougue, her administrator, moved to revive the action. Motion denied, and he appeals. Affirmed.
R. G. Brown, for appellant. Jas. M. Greer and F. P. Poston, for appellee.
Mattie Curry, as widow of John W. Curry, brought an action against the defendant railway company for the negligent killing of her husband. Pending this suit, she died; and John Lougue, as her administrator, moved the court to permit him to revive the suit in his name. This motion was resisted by the defendant, and overruled by the court.
At the common law the right of action for personal injury died with the person injured. By our act of 1851-52, carried into the Code as sections 3130, 3131, (Mill. & V.,) the rule of the common law was so far modified as to save the right of action of a person dying by the wrongful act of another, by providing that such right should not abate or be extinguished by death, and that the suit might be instituted by the personal representative of the deceased for the benefit of the widow or next of kin, and by further providing that if he declined to bring such suit the widow and children of the deceased might, without his consent, use his name in bringing such suit. Under that act, it was decided that, although the suit was for the personal benefit of the widow and next of kin, yet they could not sue in their own name, and that the suit would lie only in the name of the personal representative. Hall v. Railroad Co., Thomp. Tenn. Cas. 204; Flatley v. Railroad Co., 9 Heisk. 230; Bledsoe v. Stokes, 1 Baxt. 312. These cases rested upon the terms of the act, saving a right otherwise extinguished. "It is a general principle," said Judge McFARLAND in Flatley v. Railroad Co., "that where a right is given by statute, and a remedy provided in the same act, the right can be pursued in no other mode." The law thus stood from 1851 until the act of 1871, c. 78, found as section 3132, Mill. & V. Code, by which this right of action might be prosecuted by the widow in her own name, and, if there was no widow, then by the children. The right of action under both acts was the right of the deceased. The ground of action was the wrong to the deceased. The acts only preserved the right, and regulated the mode in which the suit might he prosecuted. After some fluctuation, it was finally settled that under these acts the only damages which could be recovered in any action under them were the damages which the deceased was entitled to recover if he had sued. Trafford v. Express Co., 8 Lea, 109. Subsequently the act of 1883 (chapter 186) was passed, compiled as section 3134, Mill. & V. Code. By this act it was provided that, when the death was caused by the fault of another, "the party suing shall, if entitled to damages, have the right to recover for the mental and physical suffering, loss of time, and necessary expenses resulting to the deceased from the personal injuries, and also the damages resulting to the parties for whose use and benefit the right of action survives from the death...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith's Estate, In re
...right of action, when realized, becomes personal property, and follows the usual course of distribution of personalty. Loague v. Railroad, 91 Tenn. , 461, 19 S.W. 430; Railroad v. Bean, 94 Tenn. 388, 29 S.W. 370.' Haynes v. Walker, 111 Tenn. 106, 109, 76 S.W. 902, Under the foregoing author......
-
Spencer v. Malone Freight Lines, Inc.
...right of action, when realized, becomes personal property, and follows the usual course of distribution of personalty. Loague v. Railroad, 91 Tenn. 458, 461, 19 S.W. 430; Railroad v. Bean, 94 Tenn. 388, 29 S.W. "The parties who are entitled to take under the statutes of distribution are, in......
-
Davidson Benedict Co. v. Severson
...his earning capacity, with the qualification that his earnings for any special year could not be shown. The next case was Loague v. Railroad, 91 Tenn. 458, 19 S. W. 430, decided at the April term, 1892. In the opinion in that case the court, speaking through Lurton, J., said of the act of 1......
-
Elliott v. Felton
...survives. ' The effect of this amendment upon the original action has more than once been before the Tennessee court, and while, in Railroad Co. v. Pounds, 11 127, it was said that its effect was to create 'a new or additional cause of action,' yet in subsequent cases the observation was re......