Swift & Co. v. Johnson
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
■ In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota. This was an action by an administratrix, on behalf of the next of kin, to recover damages for the death of her intestate. There was substantial evidence tending to show that the death resulted from an injury caused by the negligence of the defendant, which would have given the deceased a right of recovery, had he lived.
Read the full summary
■ In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota. This was an action by an administratrix, on behalf of the next of kin, to recover damages for the death of her intestate. There was substantial evidence tending to show that the death resulted from an injury caused by the negligence of the defendant, which would have given the deceased a right of recovery, had he lived. The injury and death occurred at South St. Paul, Minn., March 13, 1903. The deceased was about 17 years of age, and left surviving him a father, aged 38 or 39 years, a mother, and a younger…
1Opinion of the CourtVan Devanter, Circuit Judge
The principal, questions presented upon this record are: (1) For whose benefit was the action maintainable? .(2) What was the proper measure of recovery?
By the common law no action lies for an injury resulting in death, but the state of Minnesota, like most or all of the other states, has enacted a statute, modeled after Lord Campbell’s act in England, which modifies the common-law rule, and authorizes the maintenance of such an action. Gen. St. 1894, § 5913. Being entirely statutory, the action can be maintained only for the benefit of the persons specified in the statute, and then only for…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Improvement Company v. MunsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Patton v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Pennsylvania Co. v. RoySupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Randall v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Throckmorton v. HoltSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Spurgeon v. Mission State BankCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1945
- Dooley v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
- Rounds Bros. v. McDanielCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1909
- Austro-Hungarian Consul v. G. A. WestphalSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
- McFadden v. MaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.