Oates v. Union Pac. Ry. Co.

Citation16 S.W. 487,104 Mo. 514
PartiesOATES v. UNION PAC. RY. CO.
Decision Date25 May 1891
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

A resident of Missouri was killed by a train in Kansas, under such circumstances that, had the accident occurred in Missouri, his wife could have recovered from the railroad company the forfeiture of $5,000 imposed by the second section of the damage act of that state. The Kansas statute provides that, "when the death of one is caused by the wrongful act or omission of another, the personal representatives of the former may maintain an action therefor." "The damages cannot exceed $10,000, and must inure to the exclusive benefit of the widow and children, if any, or next of kin, to be distributed in the same manner as personal property of the deceased." Held, that the wife could not recover, in an action in Missouri, though no administrator could be appointed in Kansas, because the deceased left no estate there, and though no action under the Kansas statute could be brought in either state by an administrator appointed in Missouri.

Appeal from circuit court, Jackson county; J. H. SLOVER, Judge.

Sherry & Hughes, for appellant. John W. Beebe, for respondent.

BLACK, J.

The petition discloses these facts: The defendant, the Union Pacific Railway Company, owns and operates a railroad in the state of Kansas, which extends into this state. The defendant's servants carelessly and negligently ran a train of cars upon J. M. Oates, at a point in the state of Kansas, inflicting injuries upon him from which he died the next day, namely, the 9th June, 1885. Oates was not in the employ of the defendant at the time he was injured, but he was in the employ of another railroad company. At and prior to his death he resided in this state, and he left surviving a widow and three minor children. Plaintiff, who is the widow of the deceased, brought this suit in the courts of this state for the death of her husband, laying her damages at the sum of $10,000, and founding her cause of action upon the statute laws of the state of Kansas, which are set out in the petition. The circuit court sustained a demurrer to the petition, and the sole question before us is whether the plaintiff can maintain this suit in the courts of this state. As the plaintiff founds her cause of action upon the statute law of the state of Kansas, and she is also forced to rely somewhat upon the statute laws of this state, we shall first set out in words or substance the statute laws of the two states. The statute of the state of Kansas, set out in the petition, is in these words: "When the death of one is caused by the wrongful act or omission of another, the personal representatives of the former may maintain an action therefor against the latter if the former might have maintained an action, had he lived, against the latter for the same act or omission. The action must be commenced within two years. The damages cannot exceed $10,000, and must inure to the exclusive benefit of the widow and children, if any, or next of kin, to be distributed in the same manner as personal property of the deceased." It is conceded that the words "personal representatives" mean the executor or administrator, and that, under the rulings of the supreme court of Kansas, the suit cannot be maintained by the widow and children, or by either, but must be brought by the executor or administrator, he to make distribution to the widow and children or next of kin. Had Oates received the injuries causing his death in this state, then, under the circumstances set out in the petition, the cause of action would come under the second section of our damage act, which fixes the amount of the forfeiture or damage at the sum of $5,000, to "be sued for and recovered — First, by the husband or wife of deceased; or, second, if there be no husband or wife, or he or she fails to sue within six months after such death, by the minor child or children of the deceased; or, third, if such deceased be a minor and unmarried, then by the father and mother, who may join in the suit, and each shall...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • Cummins v. Kansas City Public Service Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 22 d5 Dezembro d5 1933
    ... ... 162; Shields v ... Yonge, 15 Ga. 349, 60 Am. Dec. 698; Sullivan v ... Union Pacific Ry. Co., 3 Dill. 334, Fed. Cas. No ... 13599.] The first real right to recover for the ... Mo. 156, 253 S.W. 1037 (also 282 S.W. 441); see, also, ... Ward v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 311 Mo. 92, 277 S.W. 908.] ...          While ... it is intimated in many ... time, though in some instances a great hardship was worked ... upon the plaintiff. [See Oates v. Union Pac. [334 ... Mo. 708] Ry. Co., 104 Mo. 514, 518, 16 S.W. 487, ... 488; Packard v ... ...
  • Rositzky v. Rositzky
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 11 d4 Fevereiro d4 1932
    ...by the statute, and no one can sue unless he brings himself within its terms." And in the McGinnis case, supra, this is said: "In Oates v. Railroad, 104 Mo. 514, the widow the action. The accident occurred in Kansas. It was held that the cause of action was created by the statute of Kansas,......
  • Demattei v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 4 d6 Maio d6 1940
    ...can sue, and they must sue within the time prescribed by the statute." [Oates v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 104 Mo. 514, l. c. 518, 16 S.W. 487, 24 Am. St. Rep. 348. also Barker v. Hannibal & St. L. Railroad, 91 Mo. 86, 14 S.W. 280; Barron v. Mo. Lead & Zinc Co., 172 Mo. 228, 72 S.W. 534; Packard ......
  • Superior Minerals Co. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 2 d2 Fevereiro d2 1932
    ... ... repeal the penalty section of the Damage Act. McKenzie v ... Mo. Stables, Inc., 34 S.W.2d l. c. 140; Lucky v ... Union Pacific Ry. Co. (Neb.), 219 N.W. 802. (3) If ... either the employer or the insurer could maintain this ... action, it would be the insurer and ... and points out the persons who may sue, they and they alone ... can sue, and they must sue within the time prescribed ... thereby. [ Oates v. Union P. Ry. Co., 104 Mo. 514, 16 ... S.W. 487.] Prior to the enactment of our compensation law at ... least, this rule was particularly ... ...
  • 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