Year: 1876

a NlSc QOGo1lON Or 81 Il Law.


Ann Jane Mackay. Administrative OF Louisa Jane
Mackay, brought suit in tho United States Circuit
Cour. against tho Central Railroad Company of
New Jersey to recover damages for the death
Of the intestate, alleged to have been
caused BY tho negligence OF the defendants
On the 23d OF April, ls74, Louisa Jane 4ackay
was passenger on OF the ferrypoas belonging to
the defendants plying between New York and Jersey
City, and arrival as the latter place she fell be.
tween the end OF the boat and the pier and was
drowned rhe plaintiff was granted letters OF admin


sration in the estate OF the deceased by the Surro
gate Of the county OF New YORK, and the suit was
ture When tho case was called and before
the jury was empaneed defendants moved
10 dismiss The complaint on The ground
that the plaintiff ADMINISTRATIVE In the State Of
New York anc appointed solely as such under lis laws,
had power authority by virtue OF the statutes OF
New Jersey tor and recover damages tor the
death OF this intcstate question which u was con-
cedcd by the plaintiff is clearly presented on the plead
ings The motion was made and argued before Judge
Nathaniel Shipman, aid who, al tho time having
taken the papers In The case, yesterday rendered ms
decision, winch Is as followslt is manifest that the
right OF administrator 10 recover is unknown TO
the common law, and exists only by statute. IL has
been held that such a statute has no extra terri
toria force, and that no recovery can DO
had thereon for injury which was committed
beyond the limits OF the state by whose legislation the
statute enacted. The question which arises Is
whether New York administrator can by virtue oi his
appointment by the Surrogate OF the county OF New
York receive the damages which personal rcpresen-
authorized TO sue Tor and obtain Tor the benefit
OF the widow and next Of kin by tho statute OF the
o New Jersey, ana by tho law OF the state of
New York. An administrator takes upon himself
such obligation only as the laws OF the State OF New
York, which appointed him. create, and the statute
OF another state cannot impart 10 HIM
powers which tho statutes OF his own
State do confer lie is the creation Of the local


law aud until additional authority is derived by virtue
OF an additional appointment he has only the power
which the local law confers The right which the
plaintiff supposed to have received by the statute OF
New Jersey is not right to any properly which Is
the assets OF the deceased OF her estate, but IS


right trustee Of the fund which may he OBJ


tanned for the next Of kin, position IN which she is
not placed by the laws under which she was
appointed. In order to execute such u trust
the trusteeship must have been conferred, and the
only pte which the plaintiff has acquired to the
trustcoshp is by virtue or her appointment as
administrarix under tho laws Of New YORK. Its laws
do not confer upon the representatives Of deceased
persons any power TO obtain damages for injuries re-
sulting in death which the deceased received IN an
other State This question has been considered by the
Supreme Courts OF Massachusetts and Ohio. In case
the court similar the present one the de-
csion says tho only construction which the statute
i've is that IL coniers certain new and peculiar
powers upon the personal representative in New York.


succession the right OF action not existing by tho
law, cannot DO prescribed by the laws OF ono
state to the tribunal OF another. The motion was
granted and the complaint dismissed.