Brunette v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company

• Decision Date: 12 July 1912
• Docket Number: 17,573 - (182)
• Citation: Brunette v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company, 137 N.W. 172, 118 Minn. 444 (Minn. 1912)
• Parties: CHARLES BRUNETTE v. MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL & SAULT STE. MARIE RAILWAY COMPANY
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

137 N.W. 172

118 Minn. 444

CHARLES BRUNETTE v. MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL & SAULT STE. MARIE RAILWAY COMPANY

Nos. 17,573 - (182)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

July 12, 1912

Action in the district court for Ramsey county by Charles Brunette as the father of Guy J. Brunette, a minor, to recover $25,000 for injuries sustained by the son.The case was tried before Kelly, J., who granted defendant's motion to dismiss the action.From an order denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial, he appealed.Reversed.

SYLLABUS

Statute applies to nonresident minor.

R.L 1905, § 4060, providing that a father may maintain an action for the injury of a minor child, applies to a nonresident minor child on whose behalf an action is brought in this state.

Jurisdiction of minor -- judgment.

In an action so brought by a nonresident father on behalf of his minor child, the courts of this state have jurisdiction of the person of the minor, and a judgment rendered in such action would bar a subsequent action by or on behalf of the minor, brought either in the courts of this state or in the courts of a sister state.

Representative of minor -- domestic law.

Who shall represent a minor in an action in this state is a matter wholly of procedure, and no part of the cause of action of such minor.Therefore the laws of this state govern as to this question, and not the laws of the domicile of such minor or his parents.

Barton & Kay, for appellant.

J. L. Erdall and M. D. Munn, for respondent.

OPINION

BUNN, J.

Guy J. Brunette, a minor, residing with his parents in the state of Michigan, lost one of his legs by being run over by cars of defendant while attempting to cross its tracks in Gladstone, Michigan.This action was brought in this state in the name of Charles Brunette, "as father of Guy J. Brunette," to recover for the injuries received; the complaint alleging negligence on the part of defendant.Jurisdiction of defendant was obtained here.The answer denied negligence, and alleged contributory negligence.On the trial, defendant objected to any evidence, on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter; the accident having happened in Michigan, the minor and his father being residents of that state, and no guardian or guardian ad litem having been appointed, as required by the laws of Michigan before an infant can prosecute an action.This objection was sustained, and the case dismissed.A motion for a new trial was denied, and plaintiff appealed.

It is the position of the respondent, and was that of the trial court, that a nonresident parent cannot maintain an action on behalf of a nonresident minor, under section 4060, R.L. 1905.

1.The first reason advanced in support of the conclusion of the trial court is that section 4060 was intended to apply only to citizens of Minnesota.The language of the section will not bear this construction.The rule is well settled that words in a statute importing general application will not be restricted to the citizens or residents of this state.Renlund v. Commodore Mining Co.89 Minn. 41, 93 N.W. 1057, 99 Am. St. 534.It is clear that the injured person may sue in the courts of this state, though he is a nonresident, and though the accident happened without the state, providing, of course, that jurisdiction of the person of defendant is acquired.If he is a minor, no sound reason exists for denying him the benefit of our laws that concern the subject of who shall act as the representative of the minor in prosecuting the action here.Without deciding whether this state could refuse to give citizens of another state the benefit of this law, we hold that it has not attempted to do so, and that the statute applies to nonresidents, as well as to residents and citizens, of Minnesota.The argument that the court would have no power or control over the nonresident parent, and could not enforce the provisions of section 4060 as to requiring security to be given, does not seem to us sound.We perceive no valid reason why payment to the parent of any judgment or sum received in settlement cannot be made conditional upon the bond being given, or why the courts of the domicile cannot be safely trusted with thereafter protecting the interests of the minor.

2.The second reason assigned for holding that this action cannot be prosecuted on behalf of the minor by his father is that a judgment in this case would not bind the minor in the courts of Michigan.

The real question here is whether jurisdiction of the minor is acquired.If it is, then the courts of Michigan are bound to give full faith and credit to the judgment.If, however, there is a want of jurisdiction, the judgment is not entitled to be given full faith and credit in the courts of other states.Thompson v. Whitman,85 U.S. 457, 21 L.Ed. 897;Tillinghast v. United States Savings & Loan Co.99 Minn. 62, 108 N.W. 472.The courts of Michigan would have to determine the question whether the courts of this state had jurisdiction; but we can see no reasonable doubt that they would decide that we had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the parties.

The only possible doubt here is on the question of the jurisdiction of the person of the minor.We have held in several cases that the judgment in an action brought by the father for the benefit of his minor child under section 4060 is a bar to any subsequent action for the same cause prosecuted by the minor, by his guardian, general or ad litem, or by himself when he reaches his majority.The infant is a party to the action, through his father as his representative.Lathrop v. Schutte,61 Minn. 196, 63 N.W. 493;Bamka v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.61 Minn. 551, 63 N.W. 1116, 52 Am. St. 618;Hess v. Adamant Mnfg. Co.66 Minn. 79, 68 N.W. 774.It is the infant's case.He is the real partyplaintiff.At common law he could sue through a guardian ad litem, or through a next friend, and it was generally held that, in the case of representation by his "next friend," no...