Knight v. Moline, E. M. & W. Ry. Co.

Citation160 Iowa 160,140 N.W. 839
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Decision Date09 April 1913
PartiesKNIGHT v. MOLINE, E. M. & W. RY. CO.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from District Court, Scott County; A. P. Barker, Judge.

The plaintiff sues as administrator of the estate of James S. Hayes. The action is for damages for alleged negligence resulting in the death of Hayes. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant has appealed. Affirmed.Lane & Waterman, of Davenport, for appellant.

I. S. Pepper, of Muscatine, and Wade, Dutcher & Davis, of Iowa City, for appellee.

EVANS, J.

The defendant is an Illinois corporation. The decedent was a resident of Illinois and an employé of the defendant in charge of a street car as a conductor. The accident occurred on December 31, 1909, in Illinois; the decedent being crushed between two cars in a rear-end collision while engaged in adjusting the trolley to the line at the rear of his own car. The cause of action therefore accrued in Illinois and arose under a special statute of that state. The decedent left a widow and child. The administratorwas a resident of the state of Illinois. The alleged errors assigned for our consideration are few in number. The further facts material for our consideration will be stated in appropriate place in the discussion of points presented.

1. After the verdict, the defendant moved in arrest of judgment. One of the grounds of such motion was that the plaintiff was a foreign administrator only and had not qualified under the statute of this state, and that he could not therefore maintain this action. The appellee's answer to the contention is twofold: (1) That the damages sought to be recovered in this action are not assets of the estate, and that an action will lie for the recovery thereof by a foreign administrator for that reason; and (2) that the point thus raised had been waived by failure to make any issue thereon by appropriate pleading.

[1] It is the general rule that a foreign administrator cannot maintain an action in this state to recover the assets of the estate until he qualify as such in accord with the provision of section 3306 of the Code. McClure v. Bates, 12 Iowa, 77;Chamberlain v. Wilson, 45 Iowa, 149. This is a general rule which is recognized in practically all jurisdictions. The underlying reason for it is that no state will allow property within its jurisdiction to be so appropriated by a foreign administrator as to destroy the opportunity of its own citizens to enforce their claims against it. To this rule some exceptions are recognized by some courts. It has been quite frequently held that, where a foreign administrator has a right of action as a mere trustee for the benefit of particular beneficiaries, he may maintain such action in such capacity. This exception rests in part upon the theory that the cause of action in such a case is not a part of the assets of the estate, and that therefore the resident creditors of the decedent within the state are in no wise affected. Connor v. Railway Co., 28 R. I. 560, 68 Atl. 481, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1252, 13 Ann. Cas. 1033;Boulden v. Railway Co., 205 Pa. 264, 54 Atl. 906;Wilson v. Tootle (C. C.) 55 Fed. 211;McCarty v. Railway Co. (C. C.) 62 Fed. 437.

In the case before us the right of action arose in Illinois under a special statute thereof (Hurd's Rev. St. 1911, c. 70). This statute was as follows:

Section 1. Whenever the death of a person shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect or default, and the act, neglect or default is such as would, if death had not ensued, have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, then and in every such case the person who, or company or corporation which would have been liable if death had not ensued, shall be liable to an action for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured, and although the death shall have been caused under such circumstances as amount in law to felony.

Sec. 2. Every such action shall be brought by and in the names of the personal representatives of such deceased person, and the amount recovered in every such action shall be for the exclusive benefit of the widow and next of kin of such deceased person, and shall be distributed to such widow and next of kin in the proportion provided by law, in relation to the distribution of personal property left by persons dying intestate; and in every such action the jury may give such damages as they shall deem a fair and just compensation with reference to the pecuniary injury resulting from such death to the wife and next of kin to such deceased person, not exceeding the sum of $10,000.00. [[[Provided, that every such action shall be commenced within one year after the death of such person.]

The last sentence is inclosed in brackets for convenience of reference later. It will be observed from the foregoing that, while such action for damages must be brought in the name of the personal representative, the amount recovered “shall be for the exclusive benefit of the widow and next of kin.” It is quite clear, therefore, that the damages sought are not assets of the estate in the ordinary sense that resident creditors have claims thereon. There might, however, be next of kin residing in this state. Whether their interest would operate against the right of a foreign administrator to sue is a question which we do not find discussed in the cited authorities. In some of the cases cited above, the ground of the holding was that, under the statute creating the right of recovery, such right was confined to the administrator of such state, and that, unless he could bring action in a foreign state, nobody could bring it (Conner v. Railway Co., supra); and upon the further ground in the cited case that there was no provision in the statute of Rhode Island for permitting the Connecticut administratrix to qualify therein.

[2] In this state we have a very simple and reasonable statute which permits a foreign administrator to qualify in this state and which provides the method by which it shall be done. Our section 3306 is as follows: Sec. 3306. Foreign Administration. If administration of the estate of a deceased nonresident has been granted in accordance with the laws of the state or country where he resided at the time of his death, the person to whom it has been committed may, upon his application and upon qualifying in the manner required of nonresident executors, be appointed to administer upon the property of the deceased in this state, unless another had been previously appointed; but the original letters or other authority conferring his power upon such administrator, or an attested copy thereof, must be filed and recorded with the clerk of the proper court, and a bond, with resident sureties, given in such an amount as the court shall prescribe conditioned for the payment of all claims allowed to residents of the state and the payment of all legacies and distributive shares coming to such residents, so far as the assets thereof shall extend, before such appointment can be made. In such cases, the court or judge may require payment of all claims filed and allowed or proved belonging to residents of this state, and of all legacies or distributive shares payable to such residents, before allowing the estate to be removed from the state.” Under this section an administrator of a nonresident decedent may be appointed to administer property in this state. As such he may sue and be sued. If an administrator were appointed in this state other than the foreign administrator, who, then, could maintain this action? Could the foreign administrator maintain it to the exclusion of the local administrator? In such case, which would be the “personal representative” of the decedent in Iowa within the meaning of the Illinois statute? We propound these questions to ourselves lest we open the door to conflict of authority and jurisdiction, and lest we eliminate something from section 3306.

[3] Whether a foreign administrator as a mere trustee may, as a matter of right, in any case, sue in our courts upon a cause of action arising outside of this state is an abstract question upon which the members of the court are not at the present time wholly agreed. We are agreed, however, upon the concrete question before us. There was neither property nor creditors nor beneficiaries of the estate of the nonresident decedent in this state. No administration was taken out or claimed by any one. The cause of action sued on arose in Illinois and under the special statute of that state. It had never accrued to the decedent in his lifetime. Under the statute it accrued to the administrator as trustee for the widow and child. We see no fair reason, therefore, why, in such a case, the foreign administrator should not be recognized in our courts to sue as the undisputed trustee for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Turner v. M.-K.-T. Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 4, 1940
    ...Sams, 247 S.W. 111; Christner v. Ry. Co., 64 S.W. (2d) 752; Wright v. Ins. Co., 1 Fed. Supp. 663; Knight v. Railroad Co., 160 Iowa, 160, 140 N.W. 839; Munn v. Assn., 101 N.Y. Supp. 91, aff. 82 N.E. 724; Reed v. Swift, 45 Cal. 255; Vaut v. Gatlin, 120 Pac. 273. (8) The judgment, after reduct......
  • Turner v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 4, 1940
    ... ... v. Frazier, 6 Ky. L. 448, 13 Ky. 143; Marketts v ... Bays, 4 A. & E. 489, 11 Reprint 871; Foster v ... Knight, 93 So. 913; Vette v. Sanitary District, ... 260 Ill. 432, 103 N.E. 241; Wright v. Le Claire, 4 ... Greene, 420; Railroad Co. v. Akin, 210 ... ...
  • Rosin v. Northwestern States Portland Cement Co.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • February 8, 1961
    ...R. I. & P. R. Co., 129 Iowa 747, 106 N.W. 177; Cahill v. Illinois Central R. Co., 137 Iowa 577, 115 N.W. 216; Knight v. Moline, E. M. & W. R. Co., 160 Iowa 160, 140 N.W. 839; Hueston v. Preferred Acc. Ins. Co., 184 Iowa 408, 413, 168 N.W. 150; James v. Winifred Coal Co., 184 Iowa 619, 628, ......
  • McKinney v. Fairchild Intern., Inc.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • May 14, 1997
    ...and procedure and not in accordance with those of the foreign jurisdiction. (citations omitted)." Knight v. Moline E.M. & W. Ry. Co., 160 Iowa 160, 169, 140 N.W. 839, 842 (1913). See Scott by Ricciardi v. First State Ins. Co., 155 Wis.2d 608, 617, 456 N.W.2d 152, 157 (1990)("While the 'borr......
  • 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