The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-07-18
McGEHEE ct al. receivers V. WILLIS
 Administrator.

Action against receiver of railroad com pany to recover damages for negligent killing of employee.-Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson.
 1. Action for negligent killing of em- ploye; plaintiffs appointment as admin
 istrator can not be questioned by plea.-
 In an action by an administrator to re- cover damages for the alleged negligent
 killing of his intestate, the validity of the plaintiffs appointment as adminstra- tor of the deceased can not be collateral ly question by plea on the ground that the decedent was not resident of and left no estate in the county where the letters of administration were issued.
 ?. Same; discharge of receivers of rail
 road bar to recover in suit against
 them.-In an action against the receivers of railroad company to recover damages for the negligent killing of plaintiffs in- testate, plea which sets up that since
 the commencement of said suit the de- fendants had been fully and finally dis charged from their receivership by the court which appointed them, and had
 turned over to their successors, another | railroad company, all property which they
 held as such receivers, presents a good
 defense to the further prosecution of the action; and demurrer to such plea, on l the ground of it's insufficiency as de- fcnse, should be overruled.
 5. Action for negligent killing of era- pfoye; sufflcientcy of plea.-In an action
 by an administrator against the receivers of a railroad company to recover damages for the alleged negligent killing of the plaintiffs intestate, where the complaint ayers that the intestate was employed by ! the defendants as yard master, and that
 he was required, in connection with his other duties. to couple and uncolple cars and that the injury was caused while | uncoupling cars by reason of the negli- gence of the engineer a plea which ayers l that at the time of the injury which caused his death, the plaintiffs intes- | tate was not in the discharge O: his | duties as yard master, but was perform 1 ing the duties of a brakeman in coupling and uncouphng cars, and he thus proxi- mately contributed to cause his death" :" | is bad and subject to demurrer.
 4. Action for negligent killing; ccn- tributory negligence; general affirmative charge in favor of defendant.-In an ac-
 tion against railroad company to re- cover damages for the killing of his in
 testate, caused by the alleged negligence
 of the defendants engineer, where it is shown that tn plaintiffs intestate was
 killed while uncoupling cars, which wss
 one of his duties, the general affirmative charge requested by the derendant, on lhe
 theory of contributory negligence, shculd not be given even though the plaintiffs s intestate was negligent in being in the
 position he occupied when injured, where it is open to the jury to find that the eE- gineer was guilty of such negligence in moving his engine or allowing 1t t1 be moved so as to bring the cars together. knowing that the plaintiffs intestate WAS between them, and that he had right to ass lme that the engineer would keep the engine stationary while he was so between said cars.
 g. Action for negligent killing; measure of damagos.-In an action to recover damages for the alleged negligent hilling of plaintiffs intestate, where it Is shown that at the time he was injured the plaintiffs intestate was an unmarried man, the damages recoverable are to be determined by the jury ascertaining the value of the plaintiffs intestate's life to the distributes of his estate from con sideration of his life expectancy. health, strength, earning capacity, etc, and from all the circumstances. capacities and
 characteristics of his life, as 1t existed up to the time of the mortal injury.
 Reversed and remanded
 Opinion by Mcclellan, c. J.