NOTES OF RECENT CASES OF IMPORTANCE FROM THE NATIONAL REPORTER SYSTEM (Copies of the pamphlet Reporters containing full reports of any of these decisions may be secured from the West Pub lishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, at 15 cents each. In ordering, the title of the desired case should be given as well as the citation of volume and page of the Reporter in which it is printed.)
ALIEN HEIRS. OP ACTION)
(ADMINISTRATION — SURVIVAL
IOWA SUPREME COURT. The defense interposed in Roano v. Capitol City Brick & Pipe Co., 101 Northwestern Reporter, 437, •which was an action to recover damages for the wrongful death of plaintiff's intestate, was that the latter was unmarried and without issue, and that his next of kin was his mother, an alien, residing in Italy, and that he left no estate to be adminis tered upon. The question presented for review was •whether an administrator appointed in Iowa could maintain an action in that state for an injury resulting in the death of a resident alien when it affirmatively appeared that intestate's sole heir •was and still is a non-resident alien. The Iowa •Code provides that all causes of action shall sur vive and may be brought notwithstanding the •death of the person entitled or liable to the same, and the court states the contention to be that a non-resident alien is not to be regarded as a per son entitled to the benefits of the Iowa statute, stating further that this argument recalls the theory of the old Roman law that laws are per sonal rather than territorial in their application. The rule of this country has always been the reverse, however, and upon the point that a non resident alien may maintain suits in our courts •without any special statutory authority, the court cites Knight v. R. Co., 108 Pa. 250, Kellyville Coal Co. v. Petraytis, 195 Ill. 215, 63 N. E. 94, and Betaloro v. Perkins, 101 Fed. 393. It ap pears, nevertheless, that the misconception arising from the assumption of a general rule that stat-utes conferring benefits are to be construed as not extending to non-resident aliens, has in some jurisdictions been applied in solving the identical •question which is being considered in this case r>cni v. Pa. R. Co., 181 Pa. 525, 37 Atl. 558; Brannigan v. Union Gold Mining Co., 94 Fed. 164; McMillan v. Spider Lake Saw Mill Co., 103 "Wis. 332, 91 N. W. 979; and Adam v. British & Foreign S. S. Co., 2 Q. B. D. 430. The Adams •case apparently is overruled, however, in the re cent English case of Davidson v. Hill, 2 K. B. D. 606. The decided weight of authority in this country, however, is against the proposition that non-resident alien relatives of a deceased person are not entitled to recover under statutes similar to Lord Campbell's act relating to fatal accidents. The court cites as a leading case that of Mullhall v. Fallen, 176 Mass. 266, 57 N. E. 386. The fol
lowing cases cited in Judge Holmes' opinion in that case are approved by the Iowa court: Luke v. Calhoon Co., 52 Ala. 115; Augusta R. Co. v. Glover, 92 Ga. 132, 18 S. E. 406; Philpott v. Mis souri Pac. R. Co., 85 Mo. 164; Bruce's Adm'r v. Cincinnati R. Co., 83 Ky. 174. A number of other authorities holding the same view are dis cussed at some length. In conclusion the court says that the Iowa statutes do not provide that the recovery shall be for the benefit of certain relatives, but expressly says that it shall be for the benefit of the estate. It will be soon enough to be concerned about whether the decedent's mother, a non-resident alien, is entitled to the proceeds of the recovery when the administrator is called upon to make distribution of the estate of the deceased. Upon this last point the court disapproves the case of Cleveland C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Osgood (Ind. App.), 70 N. E. 839, where it was held that no right of action arises under a statute similar to the Iowa statute in behalf of the administrator where the next of kin who will be entitled to recover are non-resident aliens. AUTOMATIC COUPLERS. (INTERSTATE COM MERCE — STATUTORY CONSTRUCTIONS) UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. The law prohibiting common carriers from using any car not equipped with automatic couplers in moving interstate commerce was considered in Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co., 25 Supreme Court Reporter, 159. Three important points are decided. It is first held that locomotives are embraced by the words "any car" as used in the act, and that therefore the law is not complied with unless locomotives are also equipped with automatic couplers. It is also held that the law is not complied with where a locomotive and a dining car are both equipped with automatic couplers but of such different types as will not couple with each other automatically. Third, it is held that a dining car is engaged in interstate commerce where it is in constant use between two interstate points, and where it is brought a part of the distance on one train and is then side tracked until the arrival of the train going in the opposite direction, the particular use under con sideration being the manceuvers which were nec essary in sidetracking the car for the purpose above referred to. On these three points the
