Mattfeld v. Nester, 32 N.W.2d 291 (1948)

Citation: Mattfeld v. Nester, 32 N.W.2d 291 (1948)
Parent Document: Mattfeld v. Nester, 32 N.W.2d 291 (1948)
Jurisdiction: Minnesota (state)
Effective Date: 1948-04-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3533510/mattfeld-v-nester/ ↗

Full Text

1,589 chars

The utter lack of any good reason to sustain the decisions of the English courts and the inapplicability of the English rule to American conditions have been pointed out in numerous well-considered cases. Judges Dillon and Deady covered most of the ground in their decisions above cited. In Travelers’ Ins. Co. v. Great Lakes Eng. Works Co. (6 Cir.) 184 F. 426, 36 L.R.A.(N.S.) 60, and note, it is shown that death caused by violation of duty to another may be the basis for a cause of action against the wrongdoer for damages directly and proximately resulting therefrom. Other cases cited by us show clearly that the English courts misapplied in cases of this kind the maxim that a personal right of action dies with the person. The cause of action which dies with the person is one which belongs to the person who dies and not to someone else. Hence, under the maxim, only a cause of action based upon personal right belonging to the wife would die with her (parenthetically, by statute, the maxim has been rendered largely nugatory in cases of this kind, if not entirely so. Kuhnle v. Swedlund, 220 Minn. 573, 20 N. W. [2d] 396), but not one belonging to the husband. Furthermore, the husband’s cause of action is not only separate and distinct from that of his wife, but also it is not a cause of action based upon personal right as that term is used in the maxim, but on the contrary is one based on injury to his property or estate, which survives the death of both the husband and the wife. Fowlie v. First Minneapolis Trust Co. 184 Minn. 82, 237 N. W. 846, 78 A. L. R. 589, supra.

Other Sections in This Document (117)

Full Text