The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1910-04-07
HUSBAND
PERSONAL
PROPERTY?
QUESTION RAILS ED IN
UNIQUE SUIT BROUGHT
BY WOMAN
----s-->--~a
RAILROAD KILLED HER
IMAM" SUES FOR DAMAGES
.--.-- .-..--.
tBy Associated press.J

Washington, D. G., April Z Wheth-
.er a husband may be considered the
personal property Of his wife. aud
whether tho "Blow.Post law" OF
Georgia Is constitutional are two Of
ihc questions at stake in Ghc unInno
sult OF Mrs Josephine King, Of
Georgia, against the Southern Rail-
way company, argued today before
lhe supreme court OF Tire United
states u comes ND at time when
me only bachelor Justice of The court
Justice Moody, is too i'll to consider
the case.
The suit Is for damages, arising ont
OF q railroad accident IN the aulnma
OF 1903, Mrs King hcr husband. A. OI
lNlng, and her daughter, Miss lnc4I
King, were riding along country
road in Georgia behind a mule. AL
nigh bank obscured the view of the
acks Of the Southern RAILWAY com.
pany lust ahead Of ihom. AS qhe
mule got sqnarely upon the track. n
tGrough passenger train from wash
rstod 10 Atlanta struck II and the
buggy, killing King, aud iniurlng The
wife and daughter Mrs. King get
damages in the state courts for In
lurlos TO her person She also sued
on the death Of her husband. Il isl
his suit which was argued here To-
day before the supreme court
RaIroad's Novel Contention
In the lower court, the railroad
company contendod that the reeoy-
cry in the state court for injuries to
her person estopped Mrs. King from
maintaining an action f)i' the death
ct her husband The circuit court Of
appeals for the Fifth district in pass.
inc on the Judgment Of Mrs. King for
s3,250 for the death of her husband.
considered the argument by tho 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, icon.
stitute single cause OF action and
that separate actions win not lle
This contention appears TO be sert
cus!y made, but in the practice and
procedure Of the several states IT
would appear to be n legal novelty
without law or precedent ff II 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 court but one
Where Injuries 10 the person and
the physical property of The injured
party occur out Of the single tort.
then, and IN That event, the tort To-
tho person and tho property const-
tutes single cause Of action and as
previously suggested the same would
,be presented IN single suit. This is
the English view aud the holding is
the same IN all american courts with
tho one exception. The declaration
that the husband Is the personal
property of the wife has not as yet
received the sanction of court ~
toxt writer's. The rule as 10 a single
cause Of action has no application
lwhere The injury is suffered in a dif.
Fcrent capacity or by different pers.
tns."
Fhe BLOW. POST Law
| The personal property question
fas not dealt with by The counsel fOf
fbe railroad in brief I'm the case
kubmitted 10 The supreme court be-
'fere The argument today. The rail-
roads fight before the supreme court
rs on the consliiuiioIwlity Of The
'plow-Post law At the time OF the
accident, the trial court held tho
railroad negligent because IL was yio.
laiing this law So it became ma
tefial for the railroad 10 show that
the law was not valid
The law WIS passed In 1852. Il
have found nothing like IL anywhere
oiBe,' said J1hn J. Strickland, conn-
sci for the railroad IN HIS brief It
requires a railroad engineer to blow
fis whistle from blowposi 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 on the
highway.
The railroad contends that the
statute Imposes an unreasonable bur
UiW Oil iHlft HAht8 fiUluifl'N. II ~
said, for instance. that It would re-
nuire twelve hours for train to run
from Atlanta to Macon, Ca, dis
faDee OF about 100 miles. II the
statute were cheyed strictly,
ReAleA r. arAgi1, Tor Nc. Kiag.
claims that the constitutlonality OF
the law was not attacked properly.
Furlherm3ra. If the railroads would