McKeigue v. Chi. & N. W. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 29 January 1907
• Citation: 110 N.W. 384,130 Wis. 543
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Parties: MCKEIGUE v. CHICAGO & N. W. RY. CO.

130 Wis. 543

110 N.W. 384

MCKEIGUE

v.CHICAGO & N. W. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Jan. 29, 1907.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Rock County; B. F. Dunwiddie, Judge.

Action by Thomas F. McKeigue, as administrator of the estate of Edmund F. Broderick, deceased, against the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

This is an action brought by the administrator of the estate of one Broderick deceased, to recover damages received by said Broderick while in defendant's employ and alleged to have been caused by defendant's negligence. It appears by the complaint that Broderick died about four hours after receiving his injuries and as the result thereof. The defendant by answer denied all allegations of negligence and alleged by way of equitable defense that Broderick died intestate leaving no widow, descendants, or ancestors surviving, and but one heir at law, to wit, his sister, Johanna Murphy, who made claim against the defendant for damages on account of Broderick's injuries; that the defendant denied liability for such injuries, but that it compromised and settled said claim with said Johanna Murphy by paying her the sum of $1,000 and receiving from her a full release and discharge of all claims resulting from the injury and death of Broderick; that the time for presentation of claims against the estate of Broderick has fully expired and that but one claim of $232 has been presented; that the personal and real estate left by said Broderick amount to $1,200; and that the injuries sought to be recovered for in this action are the same injuries for which said settlement was made. A general demurrer to this equitable defense was overruled, and the plaintiff appeals.Edward H. Ryan (O. A. Oestreich, of counsel), for appellant.

Edward M. Hyzer, for respondent.

WINSLOW, J. (after stating the facts).

The question presented by the demurrer is that which was suggested but not decided in the case of C. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. McKeigue, 126 Wis. 574, 105 N. W. 1030, where an independent action in equity was brought to enjoin the prosecution of the present action at law, and held to be not maintainable because the facts alleged could be set up as an equitable defense in this action. The question is thus fairly stated by the respondent: “Is the settlement made by the defendant with Johanna Murphy, sole surviving heir at law of Broderick, deceased, prior to administration, binding upon the administrator subsequently appointed, when the asset involved in the settlement is not needed by the administrator for creditors or expenses of administration, and when the asset involved in the settlement if recovered by the administrator, will go to said Johanna Murphy?” We think this question must be answered in the affirmative. An executor or administrator is invested with the legal title to the personal property of the estate, but he holds that title charged with the duty of managing and disposing of the same in accordance with the provisions of the will or of the law. His duties are trust duties. In all essential respects he is regarded in courts of equity as a trustee. 2 Woerner, Am. Law of Administration (2d Ed.) §§ 383-500. In the broad sense of the word a trustee is one “in whom some estate, interest, or power in or affecting property is vested for the benefit of another.” Hill on Trustees, p. 41. In this sense the term includes executors, administrators, guardians, receivers, trustee in bankruptcy, factors, bailees, and agents and all persons vested with the title or control of property and charged with fiduciary duties in relation thereto for the benefit of another. Id. 1 Lewin on Trusts (1st Am. Ed.) 491. This is familiar law. Executors, administrators, and guardians are frequently called trustees and held to the responsibilities and duties of trustees by the courts. Gillett v. Gillett, 9 Wis. 194;Hutson v. Jenson, 110 Wis. 26, 85 N. W. 689;Abrams v. U. S. F. & G. Co., 127 Wis. 579, 106 N. W. 1091;Taylor v. Hill, 86 Wis. 99, 56 N. W. 738;In re Thurston, 57 Wis. 104, 15 N. W. 126;Foote v. Foote, 61 Mich. 181, 28 N. W. 90. It is well settled that...