Poe v. Raleigh & A. Air Line R. Co

• Decision Date: 25 May 1906
• Citation: Poe v. Raleigh & A. Air Line R. Co, 54 S.E. 406, 141 N.C. 525 (N.C. 1906)
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: POE. v. RALEIGH & A. AIR LINE R. CO.

54 S.E. 406

141 N.C. 525

POE.

v.RALEIGH & A. AIR LINE R. CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 25, 1906.

Death—Damages—Calculation—Statutory Rule for Computing Annuities—Application.

Acts 1905, p. 366, c. 347, prescribing the method for determining the present value of an annuity, does not establish a rule for estimating the present value of the probable future earn ings of a person for whose death an action is brought.

Appeal from Superior Court, Chatham County; Ferguson, Judge.

Action by C. C. Poe, as administrator, against the Raleigh & Augusta Air Line Railroad Company.From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.Reversed and remanded.

Plaintiff sued to recover damages of the defendant for negligently causing the death of his intestate.The negligence was admitted, and the only question presented in the record relates to the question of damages.There was no objection to the general rule for the assessment of damages laid down by the court, but the defendant excepted because the court instructed the jury that the Legislature at its last session had provided a table to be used in ascertaining the present value of an annuity.The court read chapter 347, p. 366, of the Public Laws of 1905, to the jury, and added: "These methods are submitted to you as a means by which you may calculate the present value of the net income which the intestate would have derived from the labors of his life, if he had not been killed."The court instructed the jury as to the rule of damages laid down in Watson v. Railroad, 133 N. C. 188, 45 S. E. 555, and also as to the method of ascertaining the present value of the life of the deceased as stated in that case.There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.

Day & Bell, Womack, Hayes & Bynum, and Murray Allen, for appellant.

H. A. London & Son, for appellee.

WALKER, J.(after stating the case).After giving full consideration to the able and ingenious argument of the plaintiff's counsel, we think the court erred in permitting the jury to consider the provisions of chapter 347, p. 366, of the Acts of 1905 for the purpose of ascertaining the present value of the intestate's life.The rule for estimating the damages to be allowed, in such cases as this one, has been long settled, and we have no idea that the Legislature intended by the chapter above mentioned to change the rule so firmly established.That act was intended to apply strictly to an annuity, which has a well-defined meaning in the law."An annuity is a stated sum payable annually, unless otherwise directed.It is not income or profits, nor indeterminate in amount, varying according to the income or profits, though a certain sum may be provided out of which it is to be payable; and hence, when a testator gave a beneficiary the interest upon a certain sum, payable annually, it is not an annuity, but merely an ordinary legacy, for it is not a stated sum, but may be more or less according to the earnings of the capital, and is merely interest or income."1 Words & Phrases Judicially Defined, p. 405."Thereis a distinction between income and annuity.The former embraces only the net profits after deducting all necessary expenses and charges.The latter is a fixed amount, directed to be paid absolutely and without contingency."Id."The income or interest of a certain fund (bequeathed) is not an annuity, but simply profits to be earned, and, although directed to be paid annually, that relates only to the mode of payment, and does not change the character of the bequest."Id. Bartlett v. Slater, 53 Conn. 102, 22 Atl. 678, 55 Am. St. Rep. 73;Booth v. Amraerman, 4 Bradf. Sur.(N. Y.) 129.The act of 1905 provides a method by which, in connection with the mortuary table, the present cash value of an annuity may be ascertained.It recognizes the very distinction we have drawn between annuity and income, for in section 3 it provides that, when a person is entitled to the use of a sum of money for life or for a given time, the interest thereon for one year may be considered as an annuity, and the present cash value be ascertained as in the case of a strict annuity.But it will he observed that the amount, even in that case, is fixed, as it is the interest for one year.In the first sectionthe act refers to a strict annuity, an invariable sum due by the year and payable annually, and in the third section it refers to a sum now in hand, and not one to be hereafter earned, as in our case.The first section would seem to have provided for those cases where a certain and definite sum, unchangeable in amount, is given by one person to another to be paid annually, without regard to the fund out of which it is to be paid or to any interest of the annuitant in the capital, and the third section permits reference to the fund itself (at present in hand), so far as it is necessary to ascertain, by the interest upon it for one year, what the annual sum to be paid shall be.But the entire act shows that it was not intended...