Bryan v. Inspiration Consol. Copper Co.

Decision Date18 June 1919
Docket NumberCivil 1568
Citation20 Ariz. 485,181 P. 577
PartiesRILEY BRYAN, Administrator of the Estate of ALLEN BRYAN, Deceased, E. R. BRYAN and JULIA BRYAN, Appellants, v. INSPIRATION CONSOLIDATED COPPER COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellee
CourtArizona Supreme Court

Motion for rehearing granted January 9, 1920.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the county of Gila. G. W. Shute, Judge. Affirmed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS BY THE COURT.

An action under the employers' liability law (Civ. Code 1913, tit. 14, c. 6) by the administrator of the estate of Allen Bryan, deceased, to recover compensation for loss occasioned by an accident resulting in the death of said Allen Bryan. The cause was tried to a jury. The jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff. The defendant moved to vacate the verdict and moved for a judgment for defendant notwithstanding the verdict. Defendant's motions were granted. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment dismissing the action.

Messrs Baker & Baker and Mr. A. C. McKillop, for Appellant.

Mr Edward W. Rice, for Appellee.

OPINION

CUNNINGHAM, C. J.

The appellant's assignments of error are as follows:

"(1) The court erred in rendering judgment for the appellee because the action was properly brought in the name of Riley Bryan, administrator of the estate of said deceased.

"(2) The court erred in denying the application of the appellant Riley Bryan, administrator of the estate of the said deceased, to file amended complaint, substituting E. R. Bryan and Julia Bryan, parents of said deceased, as plaintiffs in the place of Riley Bryan, administrator of the estate of said deceased."

The complaint, after stating the facts, alleges:

"(6) That by reason of the death of the plaintiff's said intestate, Allen Bryan, the estate of said Allen Bryan, deceased, and the plaintiff as administrator thereof, has sustained damages in the sum of $35,000; that the said intestate, Allen Bryan, was unmarried, and left surviving his father and mother, the parents of said Allen Bryan, and that this action is brought by the plaintiff as administrator for the benefit of said surviving parents."

The appellant contends that the action was properly brought by the administrator of the estate of Allen Bryan, deceased, for the benefit of the parents of deceased. If appellant's contention is correct, then the court committed no error by rejecting the plaintiff's offer to substitute the beneficiaries for the trustee, the administrator.

"Every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest: Provided, an executor or administrator, or a trustee of an express trust or a person expressly authorized by statute, may sue without joining with him the person for whose benefit the action is brought." Paragraph 400, Civ. Code, Ariz. 1913.

The complaint shows on its face that the action is brought by the administrator for the use and benefit of the parents of the deceased; consequently, under the proviso of said paragraph 400, the cause could properly be prosecuted by the administrator without joining the beneficiaries. It naturally follows that the court was wholly within the law when it rejected the motion of the administrator to substitute the beneficiaries for the administrator as the party plaintiffs, unless paragraph 3158, Civil Code of 1913, employers' liability law, changes the rule prescribed by paragraph 400, supra.

The portion of said paragraph 3158 applicable to the question here presented is as follows:

" . . Personal injury or death by any accident arising out of and in the course of such labor, service and employment, and due to a condition or conditions of such occupation or employment, is caused to or suffered by any workman engaged therein, in all cases in which such injury or death of such employee shall not have been caused by the negligence of the employee killed or injured, then the employer of such employee shall be liable in damages to the employee injured, or, in case death ensues, to the personal representative of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Consolidated Arizona Smelting Co. v. Egich
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • May 3, 1920
    ... ... occupation." ... In ... Arizona Copper Co. v. Burciaga, infra, it ... "The ... wrong giving the ... As ... clearly intimated by this court in Inspiration ... Consolidated Copper Co. v. Mendez, 19 Ariz ... 151, 166 P. 278, ... No ... constitutional questions were raised in Bryan v ... Inspiration Consol. Copper Co., 20 Ariz. 485, 181 P ... 577 ... ...
  • Bryan v. Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co.
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • January 3, 1925
    ...Rice & Mathews, for Appellee. OPINION McALISTER, C. J. Including a rehearing this case is before the court for the third time. See 20 Ariz. 485, 181 P. 577, and 23 Ariz. 205 P. 904. It is an action under the Employers' Liability Law (Civ. Code 1913, pars. 3153-3179) to recover damages from ......
  • Inspiration Consol. Copper Co. v. Bryan
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • February 7, 1927
  • Bryan v. Inspiration Consol. Copper Co.
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • April 11, 1922
    ...the Superior Court of the County of Gila. G. W. Shute, Judge. Judgment of lower court reversed. ON REHEARING For former opinion, see 20 Ariz. 485, 181 P. 577. Baker & Baker, Mr. A. C. McKillop, and Mr. F. C. Struckmeyer, for Appellants. Mr. E. W. Rice, for Appellee. OPINION PATTEE, Superior......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT