The New York herald., 1878-03-10
THE COURTS.
Enforcing in This State New
jersey Causes.
JUDGE BRADY's DECISION.
Expense OF Taking Colonel O'Mahony's $
Remains to Ireland.

In the case Of Stailknecht vs. the Pennsylvania
Railroad Company, the Supreme Court General Term,
have affirmed the order overruling The demurrer TO
the complaint The case involves many nco ques-
tions not heretofore directly passed upon by the
courts Of this State Judge Brady gave tho opinion,
which Is given below In FULL
Tho intestate in the employment Of the defend
ant, ana while engaged was killed on the line OF
their road route, and in the State OF New
Jersey. It does not appear by express averment
whether or not he was resident Of this county
time OF his death, but the presumption be
that he was, inasmuch htters Of administrator
wero granted on his effects When tho collision
surred by which the ntesate was deprived OF his life
there existed In this and IN the State OF New Jersey
statute which gave TO the personal Of
Tho person killed right Of action for damages result
Ing from death II caused by negligence. When
the death occurred q right OF action instantly ac-
crued the personal represon taives, whoever they
might be- and this right being personal in character
followed The rule OF the common law aud could be
enforced wherever jurisdictlop OF the wrong done
could acquired In the following cases, Beach
the bay StaIe Company, 80 Barb ABB; Crowley vs.
Panama Railroad Company, 80 Barb, 99, cited
hall OF the defendant, the effect OF corresponding
statute in the respective States was not considered
S a. i. was s sud tns iot,mnoa
OF the Court decidedly IN favor OF the
right Of action as consequence II Is not
doubted in OF those that the right OF action
existed by the common law 1t could be enforced in all
States wnen tho common law prevailed, and the
rine tho proposition that the law the
IN each sovereignty. When, instead OF the common
law have kindred statutes, The principe existed
from which the realm OF the common law the right
OF action springs aud the rules OF tnat realm APP
plcaDie in the enforcement of the right When,
therefore, the plainun was appointed ad-
m nistratrx she became the representative OF
the aud could enforce 1t here If by tho process
vi our courts we could obtain jurisdiction over tho
defendant. This was possible aud was accomplished
The question presented does not involve the doctrine
oi ultra vres IN any FORM II right OF action exists
anu attaches 10 the person who socks to enforce 1t
aud II not local IN character, the courts open
tor tho remedy III this the OF action
having been created by the law OF New Jersey and
conferred upon the personal representatives OF the
person killed, and presenting her claim, tins Court
is open 10 her Tor redress. In granting her the
aid OF jurisdiction VIC not subjecing the de-
fendant to action under statutes tor
done in another State, but for the endorsement OF
right Of action created by another State uron
dwelling within None Ut The
courts arc in conlict with this view, and principle
they could we'll be and stand the test of exauina-
tion. Thc 0rder appealed from should for these
reasons be affirmed, with $40 COSTS and the disburse
ments OF this appeal.
Jonn NJ Scrbner appeared tor appellant and Messrs.
William o. Bartlett and Clifford A. II. Bartlett for