Jones v. Minnesota Transfer Railway Co.
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1948, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Loegering v. County of Todd (D. Minn. 1960)
- Mattfeld v. Nester (Minn. 1948)
- Henkel v. Hood (N.M. 1945)
- Schendell v. C.R.I. P. Ry. Co. (Minn. 1925)
- Schendel v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. (Minn. 1925)
- Castigliano v. Great Northern Railway Co. (Minn. 1915)
- Bombolis v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad (Minn. 1914)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court of the county of Ramsey overruling its general demurrer to the complaint in this a personal injury action. The sole question to be decided is whether a special administrator has a right to maintain the action given by statute for the recovery of damages for death by wrongful act or omission.
The statute giving such cause of action (R. L. 1905, § 4503) provides that the personal representative of such decedent may maintain an action therefor, if commenced within two years after the act or omission, for the exclusive benefit of the surviving spouse and next of kin, to be distributed to them in the same proportion as personal property of persons dying intestate; but funeral expenses and any demand for the support of the decedent duly allowed by the probate court shall first he deducted and paid. Section 3636, R. L. 1905, provides that the word “representative,” when used in reference to probate courts and proceedings therein, shall be construed as including special administrators. The ordinary meanings of the words “personal representative” and “representative” are the same, and refer to the person constituted a representative by the proper court. 6 Words & Phrases, 5359. A special administrator is a representative of a decedent, appointed by the probate court to care for and preserve his estate until an executor or general administrator is appointed. R. L. 1905, § 3703.
It is not difficult to suggest reasons why the term “personal representative,” as used in this statute, should not be limited so as to exclude special administrators. The action given by the statute must be brought within two years next after the wrongful act or omission, and it might well happen in some cases that the death of the decedent would not result until nearly two years after the occurrence of the act or omission causing his death, and too late to secure the appointment of a general administrator before the action would be barred. In other cases there might be protracted litigation over the appointment of an executor or administrator, for such length of time as to prevent his appointment before the expiration of the time in which the action must be brought. An intention in such cases to deprive the widow and children of the decedent of all benefit of the statute cannot be imputed to the legislature, unless the language of the statute leaves no other reasonable alternative.
There is nothing in the language of the statute which requires a restricted meaning to be given to the term “personal representative,” and excludes therefrom a special administrator. We are of the opinion, and so hold, that the only reasonable construction of the statute consistent with its language and beneficent purpose is that a special administrator is a personal representative of a decedent, and may bring the action and maintain it until a general administrator is appointed and substituted. The supreme court in the case of Swan v. Norvell, 107 Wis. 625, 83 N. W. 934, in construing a statute substantially like our own, held that a special administrator could bring and maintain the action. See also Houston v. Hook, 60 Tex. 403, and Louisville v. Chaffin, 84 Ga. 519, 11 S. E. 891.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.