Johnson v. Dixie Mining & Development Co.

• Citation: 187 S.W. 1
• Decision Date: 02 June 1916
• Docket Number: No. 17969.,17969.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
• Parties: JOHNSON v. DIXIE MINING & DEVELOPMENT CO.

187 S.W. 1

JOHNSON v. DIXIE MINING & DEVELOPMENT CO.

No. 17969.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

June 2, 1916.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jasper County; J. D. Perkins, Judge.

Action by John Q. Johnson, administrator, against the Dixie Mining & Development Company. Judgment of the Springfield Court of Appeals affirming a judgment for defendant (171 Mo. App. 134, 156 S. W. 33) is certified to the Supreme Court. Affirmed.

Clay & Davis, of Joplin, for appellant. Spencer, Grayston & Spencer, of Joplin, for respondent.

GRAVES, P. J.

This case reaches us by certification from the Springfield Court of Appeals. A concise statement of the question involved is made by Farrington, J., in the majority opinion of that court thus:

"This action was instituted in the circuit court of Jasper county by John Q. Johnson, the administrator of the estate of Arthur Johnson, deceased, for damages for the alleged negligent killing of the deceased while in defendant's employ. Deceased at the time of his death was over the age of 21 years, and left no wife, minor child or minor children, natural born or adopted, surviving him. The petition charges that deceased lost his life by reason of the negligent failure of the defendant to furnish him a reasonably safe place in which to do his work. The suit was brought under sections 5426 and 5427, R. S. 1909. The defendant demurred to the petition for the reason that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, in that the administrator failed to allege the name or names of the beneficiaries for whom he sued and for a failure to allege a state of facts from which the measure of damages in an action brought under these sections could be ascertained. The petition merely alleges that plaintiff was the duly appointed administrator, set out the acts of negligence complained of and the death of the deceased resulting therefrom, and alleged that the estate of the deceased had sustained injury, and the prayer was as follows: `Wherefore plaintiff says the estate of the deceased has been damaged in the sum of $7,000, for which judgment is prayed.' The demurrer to the petition was sustained, and plaintiff, electing to stand on his petition, has appealed to this court, contending that an administrator suing under sections 5426 and 5427 does so for the benefit of the estate of the deceased, and is not required to allege the names of the beneficiaries for whom he sues other than the state, and is not required to allege facts other than the acts of negligence and the death of the deceased, nor to show the pecuniary loss for which defendant is called upon to answer in damages, except such as would naturally occur to the estate of the deceased."

The case is reported in 171 Mo. App. 134, 156 S. W. 33. It will be observed that the real question is whether since the amendment of our damage act an administrator sues for the benefit of the...