Foot v. Great Northern Railway Company
| Decision Date | 06 December 1900 |
| Docket Number | 12,248 - (110) |
| Citation | 84 N.W. 342,81 Minn. 493 |
| Parties | FREDERICK W. FOOT v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county by plaintiff, as administrator de bonis non of the estate of Michael Fanning deceased, to recover damages on account of the death of decedent. From an order, Otis, J., sustaining a demurrer to the reply, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
Death by Wrongful Act -- Settlement of Claim by Administrator -- Next of Kin.
Under G.S. 1894, § 5913, the personal representative of the deceased person may compromise and settle the claim arising under the statute with the party liable, without the consent of the next of kin or the probate court.
Death by Wrongful Act -- Time of Settlement.
Such settlement may be effected either before or after the action is brought.
Frederick W. Foot, appellant, pro se.
C Wellington, for respondent.
The complaint alleges that one Michael Fanning was so injured by defendant that he died from the effects thereof; that his widow, Ellen Fanning, was appointed administratrix of his estate, but had been removed, and plaintiff appointed in her place. The action is brought to recover $5,000 for causing the death, under G.S. 1894, § 5913. The answer set up as a defense a compromise and settlement made between such administratrix and defendant, and a release of damages. To this answer plaintiff replied by alleging that Michael Fanning left surviving him Ellen Fanning, the widow, and five children, ranging from ten to twenty-four years of age; that the settlement and compromise set forth in the answer was made without the knowledge or consent on the part of the next of kin, and without the consent or knowledge of the probate court, and that such settlement has never been ratified or affirmed by either the next of kin or the probate court; that said Ellen Fanning had no authority to make such settlement, and that she never made any account of the moneys so received to said court, but that she converted the same to her own personal use. To this reply defendant demurred, upon the ground that the same did not state any facts avoiding the affirmative matter set up in the answer as a defense. The demurrer was sustained, and plaintiff appeals.
It will be noticed that the reply does not attack the settlement pleaded in the answer upon the ground that it was procured through fraud or misrepresentation. The only issue raised by the reply is that the former administratrix, Ellen Fanning, had no authority to make the settlement. The demurrer, therefore, raises the question whether, under G.S. 1894, § 5913, the personal representative of the deceased person has power, without the assent of the next of kin and the probate court, to compromise a claim for damages.
The right of action given under this statute is exclusively for the benefit of the widow and next of kin, upon the theory that they have a pecuniary interest in the life of the deceased, and the object of the statute is to compensate them for such loss. If there is no widow or next of kin, no action can be maintained. Schwarz v. Judd, 28 Minn. 371, 10 N.W. 208; State v. Probate Court of Dakota Co., 51 Minn. 241, 53 N.W. 463. A release given for a valuable consideration by the person entitled to such benefit is a bar to a subsequent action brought by the personal representative of the deceased. Sykora v. Case T.M. Co., 59 Minn 130, 60 N.W. 1008. In the opinion in the Sykora case it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial