Robinson v. The Chicago

Decision Date05 July 1913
Docket Number18,368
Citation133 P. 537,90 Kan. 426
CourtKansas Supreme Court
PartiesHATTIE ROBINSON, Appellee, v. THE CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant

Decided July, 1913.

Appeal from Phillips district court.

Order overruling demurrer sustained.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1.NEGLIGENCE--Death of Husband--Nonresident at Time of Death--Action by Widow--Failure to Plead Foreign Statute.In an action brought in time by a widow to recover damages for the negligent killing of her husband in the operation of a railway train the omission to allege in the petition that the deceased was a nonresident of Kansas but was a resident of another state and that by the laws of such other state the widow was the only person authorized to bring the action does not render such action a nullity.

2.Amended Petition--Statute of Limitations.Where in such case the plaintiff, more than two years after the death of her husband, on leave of court files an amended petition in the action and recites therein substantially the same facts as in her original petition and adds the omitted allegations with reference to the nonresidence of the deceased, the authority to bring the action under the laws of the other state, etc her action is not barred by the two years statute of limitations relating to actions of this class.

Paul E. Walker, and Luther Burns, both of Topeka, for the appellant.

W. A Barron, N. B. McCormick, T. F. Countryman, E. E. Sprague, all of Phillipsburg, I. M. Mahin, and F. W. Mahin, both of Smith Center, for the appellee.

OPINION

SMITH, J.:

This action was brought by appellee to recover damages against appellant for the killing of her husband at Phillipsburg, Kan., by the negligent operation of a train upon which the deceased was riding and in which he was shipping an emigrant car loaded with "emigrant freight," consisting of live stock, household goods, farm implements and such other goods as are usually shipped and transported in emigrant cars.It was alleged that the deceased loaded the car at Brush, Colo., to be transported to Apache, Okla., and his contract for the transportation thereof included his own transportation.In the original petition the plaintiff did not specifically allege that the deceased was a nonresident of Kansas.She alleged that her residence at the time of filing the petition and at all times referred to therein was at Brush, Colo., and that the deceased was her husband.

The appellant answered this petition but raised no question of appellee's right to...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
  • Montague v. Missouri & Kansas Interurban Railway Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 19 de julho de 1921
    ...Indiana. The court held that this amendment related back to the original petition and did not state a new cause of action. In Robinson v. Railway Co., 90 Kan. 426, a plaintiff leave of court filed an amended petition reciting therein substantially the same facts as in her original petition,......
  • Giersch v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • 9 de março de 1918
    ...constituting the only cause of action the plaintiff had or professed to have." 89 Kan. page 690, 132 P. page 200 . In Robinson v. Railway Co., 90 Kan. 426, 133 P. 537, similar ruling was made. In Harlan v. Loomis, 92 Kan. 398, 140 P. 845, an amendment to correct a mistake of the pleader, me......
  • Montague v. Missouri & K. Interurban Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 23 de junho de 1921
    ...The court held that this amendment related back to the original petition and did not state a new cause of action. In Robinson v. Railway Co., 90 Kan. 426, 133 Pac. 537, a plaintiff by leave of court filed an amended petition reciting therein substantially the same facts as in her original p......
  • Battese v. The Union Pacific Railroad Company
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • 9 de fevereiro de 1918
    ... ... 667, 60 P. 747; ... Railroad Co. v. Johnson, 74 Kan. 83, 86 P. 156; ... Cunningham v. Patterson, 89 Kan. 684, 132 P. 198; ... nor Robinson v. Railway Co., 90 Kan. 426, 133 P ... 537, touches the main point which controlled the McCarthy ... case, and which controls the one now before ... ...
  • Get Started for Free