57 F. 699 (8th Cir. 1893), 271, Western Union Tel. Co. v. McGill

Docket Nº:271.
Citation:57 F. 699
Party Name:WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. v. McGILL et al.
Case Date:September 18, 1893
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Page 699

57 F. 699 (8th Cir. 1893)



McGILL et al.

No. 271.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

September 18, 1893

Statement by SANBORN, Circuit Judge:

The Western Union Telegraph Company, the plaintiff in error, brings this writ to reverse a judgment against it in favor of Thomas McGill, Richard Lambert McGill, and Jessie Margaret McGill, the defendants in error, who were the plaintiffs below, for causing the death of Rebecca G. McGill by neglecting to deliver a telegram. Rebecca G. McGill was the wife of Thomas McGill, and the mother of the other defendants in error.

In the year 1868 the legislature of the state of Kansas enacted the following statute: 'When the death of one is caused by the wrongful act or omission of another, the personal representatives of the former may maintain an action therefor against the latter, if the former might have maintained an action had he lived, for an injury for the same act or omission. The action must be commenced within two years. The damages cannot exceed ten thousand dollars, and must inure to the exclusive benefit of the widow and children, if any, or next of kin, to be distributed in the same manner as personal property of the deceased.' Gen. St. Kan. 1889, par. 4518.

In the year 1889 that legislature enacted the following statute: 'That in all cases where the residence of the party whose death has been or hereafter shall be caused as set forth in section 422 of chapter 80, Laws of 1868, (now paragraph 4518, supra,) is or has been at the time of his death in any other state or territory, or when, being a resident of this state, no personal representative is or has been appointed, the action provided in said section 422 may be brought by the widow, or where there is no widow, by the next of kin of such deceased.' Gen. St. Kan. 1889, par. 4519.

The plaintiffs base their action upon these two statutes. Evidence of the pecuniary loss to the widower, Thomas McGill, by the death of his wife, was received in evidence over the defendant's objection. The court refused a requesd of the defendant to instruct the jury 'that Thomas McGill, being the husband

Page 700

of the deceased, is not the widow or next of kin, and is not, under the law, authorized to maintain this action against the defendant.' These rulings of the court, with others, are assigned as error.

R. R. Vermilion and C. M. Ferguson, (George H. Fearons and Kos Harris, on the brief,) for plaintiff in error.

T. B. Wall, (J. R. Hallowell and J. M. Humphrey, on the brief,) for defendants in error.

Before CALDWELL and SANBORN, Circuit Judges, and THAYER, District Judge.

SANBORN, Circuit Judge, after stating the facts as above, .

Under the common law no one could maintain an action for the negligent killing of another; no one was entitled to damages for such an act. The first change in the common-law rule was made in England by Lord Campbell's act, (9 & 10 Vict. c. 93, p. 693,) which provided that, whenever the death of any person should be caused by the wrongful act, neglect, or default of another, in such a manner as would have entitled the party injured to have maintained an action in respect thereof if death had not ensued, an action might be maintained if brought within 12 months after the death of such person in the name of the executor or administrator of the person killed, for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent, and child of the person whose death should have been so caused; that the jury might give such damages as they might think had resulted to the respective persons for whose benefit the action should be brought; and that the damages so recovered, after deducting the costs not recovered from the defendant, should be divided among such beneficiaries in such shares as the jury by their verdict should find and direct. The first statute in this country upon the subject was the act of the New York legislature of 1847, (chapter 450.) That act made the party responsible if death had not ensued liable to an action for damages, notwithstanding the death, to be brought by the personal representatives, and provided that the recovery should be 'for the exclusive benefit of the widow and next of kin.' The legislatures of the various states have generally copied these acts with more or less accuracy, and many of them have been construed by the courts of England and of this country. Under these statutes the following rules have been established without dissent among the authorities:

The action under them is entirely the creature of the statute. If the right to maintain it and to recover the damages allowed in it in any case is not expressly given by these statutes, the judgment rendered cannot stand.

Where such a statute giving a new right of action for damages specifies the person or class of persons for whose exclusive benefit the damages are to be recovered, no damages to any other person or class of persons can be allowed in the action based on the statute.

Page ...

To continue reading