Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/937

 THB GABIiAKD. 925 �lision was alleged to have been occasioned by the fault and negligence of the Garland. �On the fifteenth of February, 1881, a supplemental iibel was filed, setting up the appointment of libellant as the ad- ministrator of his son's estate, and claiming to recover in this capacity under an act of the legislature of this state requiring compensation for death by wrongful act, neglect, or default. Exceptions were filed to both libels on the ground that a court of admiralty had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter. �Alfred RusseU, for libellant. �Moore e Canfield, for claimant. �Brown, D. J. Can the original Iibel be maintained for the loss of services? Ever since the case of Baker v. Bolton, 1 Camp. 493, it bas been a settled doctrine of the common law that the death of a human being cannot be complained of as an injury in any court of civil jurisdiction. In such case the liability of the defendant ceases with the life of the per- son injured. This rule has remained undisturbed by a sin- gle well-considered opinion, except that of Sullivan v. The Union Pacific By. Co. 3 Dill. 334, for over 70 years, and although it seems to be based upon technical grounds, and does not commend itself to one's sense of natural justice, it is too armly established to be shaken by judicial opinion. Such was also the ruling of the supreme court of the United States in The Insurance Co. y. Brame, 95 U. S. 754, wherein it is said "that it is impossible to speak of it as a proposition open to question." The civil law writers appear generally to take the same view, although the court of cassation, in con- struing the Code Napoleon, seem to have held that such an action would lie. Hubgh v. N. 0. e G. R. Co. 6 La. Ann. 495; Hermann v. Carrolton R. Co. 11 La. Ann. 5. �Were this an original question, then, I should feel compelled to hold that this Iibel could not be maintained. But other courts of admiralty in this country have furnished so many precedents for a contrary ruling, I do not feel at liberty to disregard them, although I am at a loss to understand why a rule of liability differing from that of the common law should obtain in these ����