Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1877-12-05

| TION OF THE LIABILITY OF TIL
BALTIMORE AND OHIO. RAILROAD
FOR DAMAGES FOR THE. PERSONS
THERE. KIELED-THE LAW LAI1
DOWN AS TO NEGDIGENCEo OF TRANS
| PORTATIoN COMPANIES.
The Supreme Court ofAppeals yester
day decided the case of the Baltimore
and Ohio Railroad Company agains
Wightman's administrator.
This suit grew out of the acciden
which occurred in the county of Shenan
doah in the year 1875 at place known
as the Narrow Passage, which resulted
in the death Of a number of passengers
upon the train of the Valley railroad
which was at that time and is at presen
operated and controlled by the Baltimore
and Ohio Railroad Company, which ex
ercise its powers under lease from the
Virginia Midland Railroad Company.
The road upon which the accident oc.
CURED lies between Strasburg and Har'
risonburg, in the county of Shenan.
deah.
1t may not be generally known that
there is statute in Virginia, passed in
1872, which authorizes the representa-.
tives of person killed by the default,
or neglect, or wrongful act Of another.
or of a corporation, to maintain suit
and recover damages for, the killing Of
such person. Under this statute large
number of suits were brought against
/ the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Com
pany by the representatives of persons
killed at Narrow Passage.
. Among these was the present suit Of
Wightman's administrator, brought in
the county of Shenandoah; which result
ted in verdict and judgment for the
plaintiff for $4,000. From that .judg-
ment the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad
Company took an appeal to the Supreme
Court of Appeals. which was elabora-
tely argued at Staunton in October by
Moses Walton for the plaintiff and
General Williams for the company.
The decision of the Court was render
ed yesterday, Judge Staples delivering
| the unanimous opinion. Our space per-
mits, only a brief abstract Of the opin-
ion, which was an extended one, involv-
ing many interesting questions Of law
in Virginia. One Of the first points
arising in the case was Il motion of. the
Baltimore and Ohio Railroan Company
to remove it to the Circuit Court Of the
| United States for the Western District
of Virginia, upon the ground that that
company is foreign corporation, char
tered by the laws of Maryland.
The Conrt of Appeals was Of opinion
that the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad
Company. having accepteda lease from
the Virginia Midland Railroad Compa'
ny, a. Virginia corporation, and under
that lease exercising all the powers ola
Virginia corporation, had placed ltsel
in the position Of Il domestic corporation
for all the purposes of State jurisdiction
Whether the company obtained this
lease under the authority of any statute
OF Virginia or by virtue Of any provision
in the charter Of the Virginia road was
not material to inquire. If the compa
ny was here operating the Valley roat
under license from the State, it would
be considered quo ad hoe the line of sale
road as Virginia corporation, so far al
least as its liability to answer our owr
citizens in our own courts Of the wrong.
full acts of its agents. If the company
is operating said railroad without the
authority of the State it could not claim
exemptions and immunities to which i
would not be entitled if it had 9,.>a au
thority. If it exercises inc privileges
and functions of the Virginia corpora
ton it must likewise be subject to it,
duties and possibilities. This is bu
a brief outline of the reasoning of the
Court upon this point. The Court was
of opinion that the Circuit Court o
Shenandoah, therefore, did not err il
refusing to remove the case to the Cir
cult Court of the United States.
/ The Court was farther of opinion tina
in declaration under the statute ALREADY
referred to it is unnecessary to state fo
whose benefit the action is brought; tina
the law gives the damages first to tht
widow and children of the deceased
and if there be none living the damages
to constitute assets to be distributed a!
other personal estate. The opinion up
on this point involves questions of ;
purely technical character, which do no
admit Of being embraced within thu
limits Of newspaper report.
The Court was further Of opinion tina
the jury in assessing damages to tn,
widow and children under this statut,
may properly estimate the value of tn,
deceased, the amount realized by hin
from his usual avocation, and the loss 0
his care, nurture, and instruction to hi
family. All these are elements of tina
pecuniary capital Of the continu
ed exercise and employment of which
the family are entitled to the benefit
and of which the wrongful acts of tn
defendant deprived them. 1t is proper
they held, to look to the Relationship
and dependent condition of the parties
the capacity of the deceased menta
and physical, and all the surroundin.
circumstances and situation of the fami
ly, to enable the jury properly to est
mate the loss sustained and to fix tn
measure of compensation.
In estimating the damages it is no