TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Tom Reed Gold Mines Co. v. George

TOM REED GOLD MINES COMPANY, a Corporation v. J. A. GEORGE, Administrator of the Estate of MART R. SMITH

Tom Reed Gold Mines Co. v. George, 188 P. 130 (Ariz. 1920)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Arizona Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 22, 1920
Docket
No. Civil No. 1758
Citations
188 P. 13021 Ariz. 3031920 Ariz. LEXIS 110
Disposition
Reversed.
Headnotes
Death — Action for Death of Unmarried Childless Employee must be Brought by Parents. — Under employers’ liability law suit for an unmarried childless employee’s death cannot be maintained by his administrator, but only by his living parent, or by his parents jointly, if both are alive.
Summary
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior. Court, of the County of Mohave. E. E. Bollinger, Judge.

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

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM.

This case was tried to a jury in the superior court of Mohave county on April 22, 1919, and resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $5,000. The action was commenced hy J. A. George, administrator of the estate of Mart R. Smith, deceased, and the complaint, after alleging the appointment and qualifications of the plaintiff as such administrator, further alleges that the deceased died from the effects of injuries re *304 ceived in falling down a manway while engaged in work as a miner in the defendant’s mine, and that the accident was one arising ont of, and in the course of, the employment of said deceased by the defendant, and was due to a condition or conditions of his employment. It will thus be seen that the action was based on the employers’ liability law of the state. Rev. Stats. 1913, c. 6. The undisputed evidence clearly shows that the deceased, Mart R. Smith, was unmarried and left no wife or children him surviving. It also clearly appears that his mother survived him, and was living at the time of the commencement of the action, and, so far as the record shows, is still alive. Some doubt exists as to whether his father is living. This being so, the action cannot be maintained by the plaintiff as the administrator of the estate of the deceased. It can only be maintained by the mother of the deceased or by his mother and father jointly, if the father is still alive. The point has been definitely settled by this court in the case of Bryan v. Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co., 20 Ariz. 485 , 181 Pac. 577 . That case is con-elusive of the present one.

It follows that the judgment of the lower court must be, and the same is hereby, reversed for further proceeding not inconsistent with this decision.

How later courts describe this case

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

1925: 119252026peak 1925 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bryan v. Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co.231 P. 1091 (Ariz. 1925)

Most recent

  1. Bryan v. Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co.231 P. 1091 (Ariz. 1925)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Bryan v. Inspiration Consol. Copper Co., 181 P. 577 (Ariz. 1919) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list