Schultz v. Western Farm Tractor Co.

• Decision Date: 25 June 1920
• Docket Number: 15832.
• Citation: 111 Wash. 351,190 P. 1007
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: SCHULTZ v. WESTERN FARM TRACTOR CO. (SCHULTZ et al., Interveners.

190 P. 1007

111 Wash. 351

SCHULTZ v. WESTERN FARM TRACTOR CO. (SCHULTZ et al., Interveners.

No. 15832.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 25, 1920

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; W. O. Chapman, Judge.

Action by Jessie Schultz, as administratrix of the estate of Albert W. Schultz, deceased, against the Western Farm Tractor Company and another. Parties having compromised their differences and defendant having paid into court money in settlement of the action, William Robert Schultz and the plaintiff individually intervened and applied for a distribution. From an order distributing the funds, Jessie Schultz appeals. Affirmed.

Burkey O'Brien & Burkey, of Tacoma, for appellant.

F. B Churchill, of Kent, for respondent.

FULLERTON J.

On August 28, 1918, one Albert W. Schultz was injured by an automobile driven by an employé of the Western Farm Tractor Company, dying from the effects of the injury on the day following. Schultz left surviving him a widow and a minor son by a former wife. The widow was appointed administratrix of his estate and later on began an action against the tractor company in damages as for wrongful death for the benefit of herself and the minor son. Issue was taken on the complaint, but before the action was brought on for trial the parties compromised their differences, the tractor company paying into court $2,250 in settlement of the action. After the payment of the money into court the parties entitled thereto applied for a distribution of the fund. At the hearing on the application their claims proved antagonistic, and the court took evidence as to the degrees of dependency of the respective claimants, finally entering an order dividing the fund by giving to the widow $1,600 and to the son $650. From the order the widow appeals.

The statute which gives a right of action for wrongful death (Laws of 1917, p. 495), while providing that such an action may be maintained by the personal representative of the person whose death is wrongfully caused for the benefit of certain designated relatives of such person, does not in terms prescribe any rule by which the fund is to be apportioned. Seemingly it could be contended with some plausibility that an equal division was intended, or, at least, where, as here, there is a widow and a child entitled to share, the widow's portion could not exceed one-half; but as the case is presented it is unnecessary to determine the question. The child who received the minor part is not complaining, and has not appealed, and seeks an affirmation of the award and of the reasons which actuated the court in making it.

Meeting the question on the ground chosen by the parties, we see no reason to change the award. At the time of his marriage with the present appellant, Mr. Schultz was well along...