James v. Christy
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Writing for the Court | SCOTT |
| Citation | 18 Mo. 162 |
| Decision Date | 31 March 1853 |
| Parties | JAMES, Appellant, v. CHRISTY, et al., Respondents. |
18 Mo. 162
JAMES, Appellant,
v.
CHRISTY, et al., Respondents.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
March Term, 1853.
1. An action by a parent for damages for the loss of his son, who was killed by the negligence of the defendant, a common carrier, does not abate by the death of the plaintiff, but survives to his personal representatives; but the actual damages from the loss of the son's services alone survive.
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas
Todd & Krum, for appellant.
I. An action for the causes set forth in the plaintiff's petition can be maintained. (20 Wend. 210; 3 Comstock. 489.)
II. If the action, as stated in the plaintiff's petition, can be maintained, then it survives to the administrator. The personal representative of the plaintiff can maintain an action for the loss of the services of the plaintiff's son, caused by the gross carelessness and fault of defendants. This is the test in determining whether a cause of action survives. (R. C. 76, art. 2, sec. 25; Acts 1849, art. 3, § 9; 4 Howard's Prac. (N. Y.) 358; Gould's Pl. 268, § 95, note 11.)
III. But, it is insisted on the other side, that the word “rights,” used in the twenty-fifth section of article two, concerning administration, must be restricted to a right in tangible property. This construction of the language of that section, it is submitted, is to narrow and not justified either by the context or spirit of the statute. The language is broad enough to embrace any right, of whatever nature, for a wrong to which an action might be maintained against the wrong doer.
[18 Mo. 163]
R. M. Field, and E. & B. Bates, for respondents.
This case turns on the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth sections of the second article of the Revised Code, tit. “Administration.” The word “rights,” occuring in that section, is obviously intended to apply to rights of property only, or what is technically termed rights of things, as distinguished from mere personal rights. Such was the construction of this court in the case of Higgins v. Breen, Administrator of McNally, where it is said that “this act seems to include, by express enactment, the injuries which were comprehended in the English act of 4 Edward III., by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moreno v. Sterling Drug, Inc., No. C-7744
...supra, at 1066-67; Crofs v. Guthery, 2 Root 90, 1 Am.Dec. 61 (Conn.1794); Ford v. Monroe, 20 Wend. 210 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1838); James v. Christy, 18 Mo. 162 (1853). This historical timeline suggests that the English common-law prohibition was never truly part of the common law of Texas. In 1840, ......
-
Glick v. Ballentine Produce Inc., No. 51298
...of Torts, 4th Ed., 290 et seq., speech of Judge Frantz of Colorado on May 8, 1963. The only Missouri case cited, James v. Christy (1853), 18 Mo. 162, has been discussed and distinguished in Cummins v. Kansas City Public Service Co., 334 Mo. 672, 66 S.W.2d 920, loc. cit. To the effect that t......
-
Dodson v. Ferrara, No. SC 95151
...that wrongful death claims did exist at common law in this state prior to the passage of the first wrongful death statute in 1855. 18 Mo. 162 (1853). Plaintiffs' belief is misplaced. The action in James was initially brought by a father to recover for the lost services of his minor son due ......
-
State ex rel. Natl. Refining Co. v. Seehorn, No. 36178.
...word service includes consortium or comfort and society. Rapid Transit Co. v. Reeder, 42 Ind. App. 520, 85 N.E. 1042; James v. Christy, 18 Mo. 162. This rules applies to loss of services of even a child by death. (2) Since the right of action of the husband for the loss of the society, comf......
-
Moreno v. Sterling Drug, Inc., No. C-7744
...supra, at 1066-67; Crofs v. Guthery, 2 Root 90, 1 Am.Dec. 61 (Conn.1794); Ford v. Monroe, 20 Wend. 210 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1838); James v. Christy, 18 Mo. 162 (1853). This historical timeline suggests that the English common-law prohibition was never truly part of the common law of Texas. In 1840, ......
-
Glick v. Ballentine Produce Inc., No. 51298
...of Torts, 4th Ed., 290 et seq., speech of Judge Frantz of Colorado on May 8, 1963. The only Missouri case cited, James v. Christy (1853), 18 Mo. 162, has been discussed and distinguished in Cummins v. Kansas City Public Service Co., 334 Mo. 672, 66 S.W.2d 920, loc. cit. To the effect that t......
-
Dodson v. Ferrara, No. SC 95151
...that wrongful death claims did exist at common law in this state prior to the passage of the first wrongful death statute in 1855. 18 Mo. 162 (1853). Plaintiffs' belief is misplaced. The action in James was initially brought by a father to recover for the lost services of his minor son due ......
-
State ex rel. Natl. Refining Co. v. Seehorn, No. 36178.
...word service includes consortium or comfort and society. Rapid Transit Co. v. Reeder, 42 Ind. App. 520, 85 N.E. 1042; James v. Christy, 18 Mo. 162. This rules applies to loss of services of even a child by death. (2) Since the right of action of the husband for the loss of the society, comf......