Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/91

 HOLMES V. 0. <& C. BY. 00. 79 �1 Camp. 493; said at nîsi prius, in a case by a husband for the death of his wife, càused by injuries received in the up- setting of the defendant's coaeh that "in a civil court the death of a human being cannot be complained of as an in- ]ury." The subsequent cases, both English and American, appear to rest upon the authority of Baker v. Bolton, and the absence of any precedent or dictum to the contrary. �The right to maintain the action bas been denied in sev- eral of the state courts, among others in Massachussetts in Carey v. Berkshire Ry. Co. 1 Cush. 477, and in New York in Green v. Hudson Ry. Co. 2 Keys, 294; but it has been main- tained in the latter state in Ford v. Monroe, 20 Wend. 210, and in U. S. 0. C. for Nebraska in Sullivan v. Union Pacific Ry. Co. 3 Dil. 341. It has also been denied in Insurance Co. V. Brame, 95 U. B. 756. �In Sullivan v. Union Pacific Ry. Co., Mr. Justice Dillon disapproves of the common-law rule, and, speaking of the decision in Baker v. Bolton, says: "Considering that it is not reasoned and cites no authorities, and the time when it wals made, and that the rule it declares is without any reason to support it, my opinion is that it ought not to be foUowed in a state ■where the subjeet is entirely open for settlement." �But in 1846 parliament interfered, and by the act of 9 and 10 Vict. c, 93, commonly called Lord CampbeU's act, gave an action to the administrator for the benefit of the family on account of the death of a person caused by the "wrongful act, neglect, or default" of another ; and most of the states of the Union, including Oregon, have since foUowed this illus- trious example. �But the civil law permitted the action, and it is not admit- ted that in a court of admirai ty, which is not governed by the rules of the common law, a suit for damages on account of the death of a person may not be maintained. In The Charles Morgan, 4 P. C. Law Jour. 151, the district court for the southem district of Ohio, in a suit in admiralty brought by the widow to recover damages for the death of her husbànd, Bustainedthe jurisdiction, ùpon the ground that a majority of ����