Court Opinion

ID: 9676796
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:33:45.156927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:51.374724
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO TRANSFER TO THE SUPREME COURT
PER CURIAM.
Defendant Ernest (Pete) Goggins in his motion for rehearing, or in the alternative to transfer the cause to the Supreme Court strongly urges, in addition to other contentions, that Clifford Harris, husband of Alma Harris, deceased, “was the person in actual control of both actions, the person who stood solely to benefit by the maintenance of the first action, the person who made possible by his conduct the bringing of the second action, and the person who stands to benefit by receiving the greater portion of the proceeds of the second action.”
In this connection he asserts that the holding that the beneficiaries in both actions are not the same is merely a colorable distinction and without substance. He contends that after Clifford Harris receives his allowances out of the estate of the decedent, any sum recovered would be practically, if not entirely, exhausted. Therefore, he reasons from this, that Clifford Harris is the prime, “if not the sole,” beneficiary of all of the litigation and that any other construction is a legal fiction and a mere sham. As the opinion indicates, the case has been sent back to the trial court for retrial. We have no way of knowing whether or not plaintiff will again obtain a judgment, and if he does, how much the judgment will be and whether or not the allowances that Clifford Harris would be entitled to receive out of the decedent’s estate would exhaust the estate. In this respect we see no difference between the monetary situation in the instant case and that which confronted the Supreme Court in the Plaza Express Company case. The record we have before us indicates that Clifford Harris will not be the sole beneficiary of the proceeds in the two actions and that the administrator, who is the son of the decedent, will be a beneficiary in the proceeds, if any, from the instant action.
There is nothing in the record to support the assertions of defendant Goggins that Clifford Harris “was the person in actual control of both actions * * * (and) the person who made possible by his conduct the bringing of the second action.” At least, there is nothing in the record to show that Clifford Harris was the person in actual control of the instant action. We do not understand what defendant Goggins means by his statement that Clifford Harris by his conduct made possible the bringing of the instant action.
In his original brief defendant Goggins contended that there was privity existing between Clifford Harris, surviving spouse, and Clyde Harris, administrator, who was the son of Clifford Harris. We think a sufficient answer to this is contained in our opinion when we quoted from the Plaza Express Company case, wherein the Supreme Court held that the surviving spouse and administrator in that action were different persons and were not in privity with each other, stating that their interests were necessarily adverse. While the opinion in that case does not show the relationship of Randel E. Galloway, the duly appointed administrator of the Bert Galloway Estate, to the decedent, it seems obvious he was in *737some way related to the deceased and to Lola E. Galloway, the widow of the deceased. Whatever the relationship may have been, the Supreme Court held in the Plaza Express Company case that “their interests are necessarily adverse.”
We feel that what was said in the Plaza Express Company case has not been questioned or overruled by any subsequent decision of the Supreme Court; therefore, under Article V, Sec. 2 of the Constitution of Missouri it is a controlling decision and we are required to follow it. We made it very clear in that part of our opinion wherein we commenced the discussion of the Plaza Express Company case that the factual situation in the instant case raised an anomalous situation wherein defendant Goggins may be subjected to “double liability.” As is shown in our analysis of the Plaza Express Company case, it was an interpleader case and did not present a factual situation such as is present in the instant case. If the law is permitted to remain as we find it in our opinion, it presents, as appellant Goggins states, an “insurmountable obstacle” for the settlement of any death claim. If a wrongful death action is filed by the surviving spouse and settled, there remains the possibility that the defendants in the wrongful death action may be subjected to a claim by an administrator contending that the deceased received injuries which did not result in her death. Such permissible action under the law could encourage collusion between the surviving spouse and others who may be heirs of the decedent or in complete honesty the parties may differ as to the cause of death, thereby using the law for possible double recovery against the defendant. Because of the obvious injustice that may result and the great public interest and general importance of the question involved to the Bench, Bar and the public, this cause should be transferred to the Supreme Court for a re-examination of the law. Therefore, after opinion, and during the pen-dency of defendant’s motion for rehearing and in the alternative for transfer of the cause to the Supreme Court of Missouri, and in accordance with Article V, Sec. 10 of the Constitution of Missouri 1945 and Rule 84.05(g) of the Supreme Court, the court on its own initiative doth order that the cause be and the same is hereby transferred to the Supreme Court because of the general interest and importance of the question involved in the cause and for a re-examination of the existing law in the light of the circumstances of this cause.
RUDDY, Acting P. J., and FRANK W. HAYES and RAY E. WATSON, Special Judges, concur.