The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1910-04-07
Is the Husband the Personal
Property Of the Wife in
Tort
HUSBAND KILLED N ACCIDENT N
WHICH THE wife WAS injured
She Recovered Damages for Injuries
to Herself But Railroad COntended
That Death of Husband Was Injury
to Wife's Personal Property.

Washington, April Whether a
husband may be considered the per
sonal property" of his wife, and
whether the "Blow-Po5t law" of
Georgia is constitutional are two of
the questions at stake in the unique
suit of Mrs. Josephine King of
Georgia. against the Southern Rail-
y " company, argued today before the
n. 'e court of the United States.
1t up at the time when the
only .,achelor justice of the court,
Justice Moody, IS too i'll to consider
the case.
The suit is for damages, arising out
of railroad accident. In the autumn
of 1903, Mrs. King, her husband, A.
o. King, and her daugh II Miss Inez
King, were riding along a country
road in Georgia behind a mule. A
high bank obscured the view of the
tracks of the Southern Railway COM
pany just ahead of them. AS the
mule got square!y upon the track, a
through passenger train from Wash
ington to Atlanta struck it and the
buggy. killing King, and injuring the
wife and daughter. Mrs. King got
damages in the state courts for in
juries to her """son. She also sued
on the death Of her husband. 1t is
this suit which was argued here today
before the supreme court.
In the lower court, the railroad
company contended that the recovery
in the state court for injuries to her
person estopped Mrs. King from main
tanning an action for the death of her
husband. The circuit court of ap-
peals for the Fifth circuit in passing
on the judgment Of Mrs. King for 3d.
250 for the death of her husband, con-
sidered the argument by the rail-
road.
"The contention is made that the
injuries to the person of the wife and
the loss occasioned by the death of
her husband" said the court, Con-
stitute a single cause of action and
that separate actions will not lie.
This contention appears to. be ser
ously made, but in the practice and
procedure of the several states it
would appear to be legal novelty
without law or precedent. If it be
conceded that the deceased husband
was the personal property of the
plaintiff herein. then the contention
would be supported by the decisions
of every state count but one.
Only One Tort.
where injuries to the person and
the physical property of the injured
party occur out of the single tort,
then. and in that even. the tort to the
person and the property constitutes
a single cause of action and as pre-
viously suggested the same would be
presented in single suit. This is the
English view and the holding is the
same in all American courts with the
one exception. The declaration that
the husband is the personal property
of the wife has not as yet received
the sanction of court or text writer's
The rule as to single cause of action
has no application where the injury
is suffered in different capacity or
by different persons"
The personal property" question
was not dealt with by the counsel
for the railroad in brief in the case
submitted to the supreme court before
the argument today. The railroads
fight before the supreme court is on
the constitutionality of the BLOW
Post law" At the time of the acci-
dent, the trial court held the railroad
negligent because it was violating
this law. So it became material for
the railroad to show that the law
was not valid.
The law was passed in 1862. II
have found nothing like it anywhere
else," said John J. Strickland. coun-
sci for the railroad in his brief. 1t
requires a railroad engineer to blow
his whistle from a blow-post 400
yards from every highway crossing
until he arrives at the road, and to
simultaneously check and keep check
ing the speed of his train. so as to
stop in time should any person or
thing be crossing the track OH the
highway.
The railroad contends that the stat
ute imposes an unreasonable burden
on interstate. commerce.. 1t is said,
for instance, that it would require
twelve hours for a train to run from
Atlanta to Macon, Ca, distance Of
about 100 miles, II the statute were
obeyed strictly.
Reuben r. Arnold, for Mrs. King,
claims that the constitdtionality of the
law was not attacked properly. Fur
thermore, If the railroads would avoid
the consequences of the law. he says,
they may eliminate grade crossings.
He suggests that the law is valid
exercise of the police power and
should be applicable 10 an interstate
train, Just as much as to local train,
because the one is just as dangerous
to life and property in running over
grade crossings as the other.