Sanders v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.

SANDERS Et Al. v. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO.

Sanders v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 1917 OK 576, 169 P. 891

Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided: December 4, 1917
Docket: No. 8110
Judges: H-Ooeer
Citations: 169 P. 8911917 OK 57666 Okla. 3131917 Okla. LEXIS 217
Disposition: Affirmed.

Cited by 8

Syllabus

1. Death — Action ¡for Wrongful Death'— Parties Plaintiff — Staitute. Under sections 5281 and 5282, Revised Laws 1910, an action for damages for wrongful death may be brought by the widow or by the next of kin where there is no personal representative, and in such action it is necessary to plead- and prove that no personal representative is or has been appointed. 2. Same — Nonaldmipistration—Demurrer. Where the evidence in such an action-fails to establish that no personal representative is or has been appointed, a demurrer thereto was properly sustained. ('Syllabus toy -Hooker, C.)

Summary

Error from District 'Court, Caddo -County; Will Linn, Judge. -Suit toy Ida Sanders and others against the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs bring error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — H-Ooeer

Opinion by H-OOEER, -C.

This suit was brought to recover damages for the wrongful death alleged to have -been caused by the negligence of the defendant in error. The petition on which the cause was tried contained the allegation of nonadministration, which was necessary in order to confer upon the plaintiffs in error, as the widow and daughter of the deceased, the right to maintain this action as defined toy sections 5281 and 5282, Revised Laws 1910. The plaintiffs -In error, in the trial below, failed to prove nonadministration as alleged in their .petition. Proof of this allegation was necessary, and upon their failure to establish the same by the evidence, one of the essential elements necessary to toe proved was lacking, and the trial court properly sustained a demurrer to the evidence for that reason, as the demurrer filed toy the defendant in error specifically alleged that the plaintiffs in error failed to prove nonadministration as alleged in the petition. The following authorities support the doctrine as announced: Frederick Cotton Oil Co. v. Clay, 50 Okla. 123 , 150 Pac. 451 ; C., R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Brooks, 57 Okla. 163 156 Pac. 362 ; Shawnee G. & E. Co. v. Motsenbacker, 41 Okla. 454 , 138 Pac. 790 ; Big Jack Mining Co. v. Parkinson, 41 Okla. 125 , 137 Pac. 681 ; Bartlett v. C., R. I.

& P. R. Co., 21 Okla. 415 , 96 Pac. 468 ; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Lenahan, 39 Okla. 283 , 135 Pac. 383 ; City of Eureka v. Merrifield, 53 Kan. 794 , 37 Pac. 115 ; Walker v. O'Connell, 59 Kan. 306 , 52 Pac. 894 .

'The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 8 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Mecom v. Fitzsimmons Drilling Co.284 U.S. 183 (1931)
E. G. Nicholas Const. Co. v. State Industrial Commission1952 OK 398, 250 P.2d 221
H. L. Maness Truck Lines v. Lemmons1965 OK 181, 408 P.2d 288
Kansas, O. & G. Ry. Co. v. Pruitt1942 OK 136, 128 P.2d 231 · Dissent
Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. Spiva1937 OK 566, 80 P.2d 941
Oklahoma Union Ry. Co. v. Rigsby1925 OK 813, 250 P. 1001

Most recent

H. L. Maness Truck Lines v. Lemmons1965 OK 181, 408 P.2d 288
E. G. Nicholas Const. Co. v. State Industrial Commission1952 OK 398, 250 P.2d 221
Kansas, O. & G. Ry. Co. v. Pruitt1942 OK 136, 128 P.2d 231 · Dissent
Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. Spiva1937 OK 566, 80 P.2d 941
Mecom v. Fitzsimmons Drilling Co.284 U.S. 183 (1931)
Gaither Coal Company v. Leclerch31 S.W.2d 750 (Ark. 1930)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 8

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Shawnee Gas & Elec. Co. v. Motesenbocker, 1913 OK 481, 138 P. 790	50
	Walker v. O'Connell, 52 P. 894 (Kan. 1898)	25
	Mo., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Lenahan, 1913 OK 564, 135 P. 383	24
	Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Brooks, 1916 OK 1080, 156 P. 362	14
	Frederick Cotton Oil & Mfg. Co. v. Clay, 1915 OK 189, 150 P. 451	10
	Bartlett v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 1908 OK 119, 96 P. 468	10
	City of Eureka v. Merrifield, 53 Kan. 794 (1894)	36
	Big Jack Mining Co. v. Parkinson, 1913 OK 719, 137 P. 678	28

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list