McVeigh v. Minneapolis & Rainy River Railway Company
| Decision Date | 11 February 1910 |
| Docket Number | 16,474 - (231) |
| Parties | ANNA McVEIGH v. MINNEAPOLIS & RAINY RIVER RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Itasca county to recover $5,000 for the wrongful death of plaintiff's intestate. The case was tried before McClenahan, J., and a jury which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for the amount demanded. Defendant's motion for judgment non obstante was denied and its motion for a new trial was granted. From that part of the order which granted the motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
Death by Wrongful Act -- Settlement with One Heir No Defense.
In an action under the statute by an administrator to recover for loss of services for negligence in causing the death of an employee, it is no defense that the defendant had settled with one of the next of kin, prior to the appointment of the administratrix, or the commencement of the action.
Death by Wrongful Act -- Proper Practice.
The proper practice in such case is for the defendant to apply to the trial court and have that portion of the fund which would otherwise be distributed to the heir with whom settlement was made applied pro tanto in satisfaction of the judgment.
Excessive Damages -- New Trial.
The court did not err in granting a new trial on the ground that amount recovered was excessive.
Spear & Stone, for appellant.
R. J Powell, for respondent.
John McVeigh lost his life in an accident while in the employ of respondent company, and this action was brought by his mother, as administratrix, to recover damages under the statute. He left no wife or children, and the next of kin are his father and mother. The answer alleged that prior to the appointment of the administratrix the company had settled with the father of the deceased for the sum of $1,500 for the use and benefit of all those entitled to participate, and that the amount had been received by the father in full satisfaction of all claims and demands on the part of the next of kin. Appellant recovered a verdict of $5,000, and on motion the trial court granted a new trial, upon the ground that the verdict was excessive and for error in law occurring at the trial.
From the court's memorandum it appears that the error of law referred to was in eliminating all evidence offered by appellant with reference to the settlement with the father. Respondent undoubtedly proceeded in good faith in making the settlement with the father, and supposed he had authority to bind all the heirs of the deceased. In this respondent was mistaken. The father could only speak and act for himself. He was not the administrator of his son's estate, and it does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial