Christie v. Chi., R. I. & P. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 06 April 1898
• Citation: 74 N.W. 697,104 Iowa 707
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court
• Parties: CHRISTIE v. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. R. CO.

104 Iowa 707

74 N.W. 697

CHRISTIE

v.CHICAGO, R. I. & P. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 6, 1898.

Appeal from district court, Johnson county; M. J. Wade, Judge.

Plaintiff is administrator of the estate of one Lloyd P. Connor, deceased, and brings this action to recover of defendant damages for the death of said intestate, caused, it is charged, by the negligence of said railway company. Among other defenses set up was that defendant had fully settled and paid the claim for the death of said Connor. The cause was brought on for trial before a jury. After the testimony was all in, on motion, the court instructed the jury to return a verdict for defendant, on the ground that the damages sued for had been fully satisfied, and defendant released from all claims. A verdict was returned in accordance with the instruction, and from the judgment rendered thereon the plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Rickel, Crocker & Christie and Ranck & Bradley, for appellant.

A. E. Swisher, John T. Scott, Geo. E. McCaughan, and Carroll Wright, for appellee.

WATERMAN, J.

Lloyd P. Connor, while in the employ of defendant company, was killed in its yards at Brooklyn, Iowa, May 11, 1893. At the time of his death he was unmarried, and he left, surviving, his father and mother, who were his sole heirs at law. On September 20, 1893, defendant made a settlement with the father and mother of said Connor, and took from them the following instrument:

“For the consideration of $250.00, received of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, I hereby release and discharge said company from all claims and demands against it, and especially from all liability for loss or damages to us, or either of us, or to the estate of the said Lloyd Connor, deceased, of which estate we are the sole distributees; the said Lloyd Connor having died from injuries received at Brooklyn, Iowa, having been run over by a car while in the employ of said railway company as a switchman. And the said Lloyd Connor being our minor son, and having died intestate, unmarried, and without issue, we, his surviving parents, for the consideration above named, do hereby release and discharge said railway company from all liability to us, or to the estate of said Lloyd Connor, whether on account of damages by reason of his death, for money due him, or for or on any other account whatsoever. Said accident having occurred on or about the 11th day of May, A. D. 1893. Received payment September 20th, 1893. Mrs. J. E. Connor. John Connor.

The above was read to and signed by the said Mrs. J. E. Connor and John Connor in our presence, at Brooklyn, Iowa, on the 20th day of September, 1893. J. H. Tucker. Lewis Clark.”

The fairness or good faith of this settlement is not questioned, nor is it claimed that Lloyd Connor had any creditors. On August 1, 1894, plaintiff procured himself to be appointed administrator of the estate of said Connor, and on the 14th of that month he began this action. The sole question for determination is whether the settlement with the heirs precludes a recovery by the administrator; or, putting it in another way, is administration of the estate of an intestate a necessity in this state, or is it only a matter of legal convenience? Counsel for appellant insist that the heirs had no title to or ownership of the claim against the defendant, and that therefore the settlement with them was of no validity, and their receipt cannot bar the administrator in this action.

2. By section 2526, Code 1873, it is provided: “When a wrongful act produces death, the damages shall be disposed of as personal property belonging to the estate of the deceased, except that if the deceased leaves a husband, wife, child or parent it shall not be liable for the payment of debts.” Under our law the right to a distributive share of personalty in the estate of an intestate vests instanter in the heir upon the death of the owner, and not from the time of distribution made. Distribution gives to the distributee no new title, but only ascertains the property to which title attaches. Moore v. Gordon, 24 Iowa, 158. 2 Williams, Pers. Prop. 277, gives this as the common rule. It has been held in this state that heirs cannot maintain an action upon notes due the estate during the period allotted for administration. The ground upon which this holding is based is, not that they have no title, but that the extent of their interest has not been determined. Creditors have a first right to such of the personal assets as are not exempt, and it is only through administration that their rights can properly be made known and determined. After the time limited for administration has expired, the heirs may maintain such an action in their own names. Phinny v. Warren, 52 Iowa, 332, 1 N. W. 522, and 3 N. W. 157. As bearing upon this question of the rights of the heirs, see Adkinson v. Breeding, 56 Iowa, 26, 8 N. W. 685;Kelley v. Mann, 56 Iowa, 625, 628, 10 N. W. 211;Jordon v. Hunnell (Iowa) 65 N. W. 302. To hold that the heirs of an intestate have no property right in the personal estate until after distribution would cut off the estate of an heir who died before administration was closed from an interest in such property. This, we take it, no one will claim to be the law. In Phinny v. Warren, sup...