State v. Maine Cent. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 11 May 1897 |
| Parties | STATE v. MAINE CENT. R. CO. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
(Official.)
Exceptions from supreme judicial court, Sagadahoc county.
The Maine Central Railroad Company was indicted for the death of one Brown, killed October, 1893. Under Rev. St. c. 51, § 68, defendant demurred on the ground that such statute was repealed by implication by chapter 124, St. 1891. The demurrer was overruled, and defendant excepted. Exceptions sustained.
Grant Rogers, Co. Atty., H. M. Heath, and C. L. Andrews, for the State.
O. D. Baker and F. L. Staples, for defendant.
The question is whether the act of 1891 (chapter 124), giving a remedy by civil action for an injury causing death, superseded the previously existing remedy by indictment.
We think it did. The remedy by indictment was always regarded as anomalous and incongruous. It was essentially a civil suit, prosecuted for the benefit of private parties; but criminal in form, and prosecuted at the public expense. In some particulars it was subject to the rules of the criminal law, and in others it was governed by rules applicable only to civil suits. It was applicable to only a small class of cases, leaving other injuries of a similar character unprovided for. We think the act of 1891 (chapter 124) was intended to remedy these evils; that the purpose of the legislature was to provide a more appropriate remedy, and extend its application.
The act of 1891 (chapter 124), after describing the nature of the injuries for which redress is to be had, then declares that in "every such case" the remedy shall be by an action for damages. This language clearly includes the cases in which indictments had before been maintainable; and, if the new remedy does not supersede the old one, two conflicting remedies will exist for one and the same class of injuries. It is impossible to believe that the legislature intended such a result. And our conclusion is that the act of 1891 (chapter 124) supersedes and abrogates the remedy by indictment in all cases for which it provides a remedy by a civil action; and that an indictment against a railroad corporation for negligently causing the death of a person is no longer maintainable; that the remedy is now by a civil suit for damages; and, consequently, that the indictment in this case cannot be sustained.
Exceptions sustained.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mundy v. Simmons
...this anomalous and incongruous proceeding by providing the general civil cause of action for wrongful death. State v. Maine Central Railroad Company, 90 Me. 267, 38 A. 158 (1897). The new act, however, in defining the rights of the survivors, borrowed the exact language which the old legisl......
-
Anderson v. Wetter
...negligence the death occurred. The passage of this act was held to supersede and abrogate the remedy by indictment. State v. Maine Central R. R. Co., 90 Me. 267, 38 Atl. 158. The act of 1891 is now embodied in Rev. St. c. 89, §§ 9, The effect of this legislation is apparent. It was not to c......