Thornton v. Puget Sound Power & Light Co.
Decision Date | 17 October 1930 |
Docket Number | No. 20390.,20390. |
Citation | 49 F.2d 347 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
Parties | THORNTON v. PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT CO. |
Douglas T. Ballinger, of Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff.
Bullitt, Kennedy & Schramm, of Seattle, Wash., for defendant.
NETERER, District Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The motions may be considered together.
Pain and suffering introduces no new cause of action. It is but an elaboration of the statement of the injury. Washington Railway & Electric Co. v. Scala, Adm'x, 244 U. S. 630, 37 S. Ct. 654, 61 L. Ed. 1360. See, also, Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. Campbell (C. C. A.) 8 F.(2d) 223; St. Louis, Iron Mountain & S. Ry. Co. v. Craft, 237 U. S. 648, 35 S. Ct. 704, 59 L. Ed. 1160. Nor is Lewis v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co., 146 La. 227, 83 So. 535, to the contrary.
The Merchant Marine Act (section 688, title 46, USCA) gives the right of action for death of any seaman, as a result of personal injury, to the personal representative of such seaman, and gives to such seaman the right of railway employees, by the Federal Employers' Liability Act (section 51, title 45, US CA), or to his personal representatives, for the benefit of his surviving widow and children, etc. The estate does not benefit, but the representative acts solely as trustee for the designated beneficiaries. Lindgren v. United States, 281 U. S. 38, 50 S. Ct. 207, 74 L. Ed. 686.
The motions are denied.
May the plaintiff prosecute this action without repayment or tendering repayment and bringing into court the amount received?
The plaintiff relies upon Bjorklund v. Seattle Electric Co., 35 Wash. 439, 77 P. 727, 1 Ann. Cas. 443.
This court in Johnson v. Chicago M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 224 F. 196, at page 200, said:
Since the creation of the Ninth Circuit in March, 1891, and beginning with Hill v. N. P. Railway Co. (C. C. A.) 113 F. 914, McKenna, later Justice McKenna, Gilbert, and Ross, Circuit Judges, it has been the rule that, to avoid a release for personal injury for fraud, the money received must be returned or tendered and brought into court. While the release agreement may not be a contract under seal and would not require a proceeding in equity to set it aside, and could be presented in the trial of this issue if the consideration was returned or tendered and brought into court, as said by Judge Gilbert in Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Fowler (C. C. A.) 136 F. 118, where it was held that misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the releasee may be effective to avoid a release induced thereby. In that case the appellee brought into court the tendered repayment of the money received, with interest thereon.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carroll v. Fetty
... ... O. & T. P ... R. Co., D.C., 5 F.Supp. 595; Thornton v. Puget Sound Power ... & Light Co., D.C., 49 F.2d 347 ... ...
-
Mandell and Wright v. Thomas, B--1214
...Feliu v. Grace Line Inc., 97 F.Supp. 441 (S.D.N.Y., 1951); The Pan Two, 26 F.Supp. 990 (D.C.Md., 1939); Thornton v. Puget Sound Power & Light Co., 49 F.2d 347 (W.D.Wash., 1930). The statutory beneficiaries in this case are the surviving wife and children. Wright recorded the names and ages ......
-
Ted Price Construction Co. v. Cascade Natural Gas Corp.
...that Washington law is to the contrary. (Johnson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., W.D.Wash., 1915, 224 F. 196; Thornton v. Puget Sound Power Co., W.D.Wash., 1930, 49 F.2d 347). Miles deals with Arizona law, Pacific Greyhound with that of We do not doubt that the Washington Court would follo......
- IN RE KAYS, 30858.