BRENNAN tI. MOLLY GIBflON CONSOLIDATED
&: MILLING 00.
& Co. at Chicago. Their: circulars announce .that the Peale reprint is the "latest andbestj" the "only AIl?erican reprint having all marginal ref· erences;" "artide!! rewritten by eminent Americans, substituted for those in English is and, in short, is a reproduction ofthe original, except as it has been improved. Their laudations go fqrwhat they are worth, but they do lIot tend in the motest degree to confuse the mercantile identity of. their book with that of the complainants. . The motion lor an injunction is denied.
BRENNAN 17. MOLLY GIBSON CoNSOLIDATED MINING
(Ctrcutt Court, D. Colorado. January 22, 181lL)
ACTION FOR WRONGFt7L DEA.TH-HEIRS-PLEADING.
In an action by a mother for tbe death of her sons caused by defendant's negligence, under the Colorado statute allowing such an action to tbe beirs of a deceased person, it is sufficient to allege that plaintiff is the sole beir of the decedents, with· out further averring tbat they were unmarried and cbildless.
SAME-DEPENDENOE OF PLAINTIFF.
It is not essential to the right to maintain suoh action that plaintiff should have been dependent on decedents for her support.
At Law. On demurrer to complaint. O. W. Franklin, for plaintiff. W. W. Cooley, for defendant. HALLETT, J., (wally.) Catherine Brennan against 'J.'M MoUy Gibson Consolidated Mining Milling Company is a suit brought in the dis. trict court of Pitkin county, and thence removed into this court. The action is to recover damages for the death of Martin W. Brennan and Hugh Brennan while in the service of the defendant. It is averred that defendant was engaged in carrying on a mine, and employed Martin and Hugh Brennan as miners to work upon the property, and set them to work in a place which was dangerous on account of the nature of t.he ground. The ground was "filled with larp;e boulders, and surrounded by loose debris which made it unsafe and dangerous to work, which the defendant well knew from other developments previ. ously made upon said property, and which said Martin and Hugh Bren· nan had no knowledge of whatever." That defendant set them to work there without giving them notice of the danger to which they were ex· posed. That the danger was increased by defendant going upon the surface of the and drilling and blasting there in a manner to loosen the rock and dirt above the place where Martin and Hugh Brennan were at work. That the place was not sufficiently timbered; and that the earth came down upon them and killed them. The action is founded upon the statute of this state which provides that, in case of the .death of
any person from the negligenceofanother, the heirs of the deceased sur-
viving may have an action for slich death. There is a demurrer to the complaint, in which the first ground is that plaintiff, as mother of the men who .were killed, does not show herself to be the person designated in the statute as authorized to sue; and this appears to be on the ground that it is not averred that Martin and Hugh Brennan were not married, and that theShad no chi1<.1ren. The plaintiff does aver that she is the sale heir, the only person authorized to bring suit; and this is regarded as a sufficient statement of the fact. It is also objected that it does not appear in the complaint that the men who were killed "contributed directly or indirectly to the support of the plaintiff, or that plaintiff was interested in any manner in deceased, or that deceased suffered in any manner [that must be a mistake in the use of words] from the, n,egligent acts of defendant." In some states it has been held that it must' appear that plaintiff was dependent upon the person killed in some manner for support, but that rule has never been adopted here, and it is held to be entirely inapplicable to the action' under this statute. Counsel presented no briefs or arguments upon this demurrer. Defendant's counsel asked for time in which to present a brief, but the questions are so clear, and have been so often determined in this court, that it seems unnecessary to have briefs upon them or to hear any argument. The demurrer will be overruled, and the defendant will be allowed 20 days in which to answer.
UNITED STATES 11. THE W ALLA WALLA.
(DIBtr1.ctCourt, D. Washington, N. D. January 19, 1891.)
CUSTOMS DUTIIIS-FRAUDULENT IMPORTATION-LIABILITY OJ!', VESSEL,
Where a vessel employed as a common carrier was seized to enforce a lien tor a penalty under section 3088, Rev. St., there being probable cause for the seizure, but no charge of wrong-doing the owner, hel_ that. in the absence of rebutting evidence, t>roof that packages sU'P.posed to contain the contraband goods were received, transported, and delivered as freight in due course of business, and that the ma8ter had no knowledge with reference thereto, makes a sufficient case for the claimant, and the vessel must be released. ' (Syllabus b'il the Court.)
At Law. P. H. Winston, U. S. Atty., and P. J. O. Haines, for claimant.
HANFORD, J. In this case the steam-ship Walla Walla, engaged as a common carrier of freight and passengers on the route between San Francisco and the Puget Sound ports, via Victoria, in British Columbia, was seized on the 19th day of March,1889, to enforce a lien under section 3088, Rev. St., for a penalty alleged to have been incurred by her ter by violations of sections 2806,2807) 2809)3126) St. The cir-