2. That on the court of the county of

made, the plaintiff,

in the state aforesaid, duly given and was appointed executor [or adminis

trator] of the estate of L. M., deceased, and letters testamentary [or of administration] on said estate were ordered to issue to plaintiff upon qualifying; that the plaintiff thereafter duly qualified as such executor [or administrator], and thereupon letters testamentary [or of administration] were issued to plaintiff on the

day of

19, and plaintiff is now, and ever since has been, the duly qualified and acting executor [or administrator] of the estate of said L. M., deceased.

the said L. M. as a passenger on said railroad from

to

4. That on said last-named day [or state when], and while said L. M. was on the cars on the said journey, at and in this state, the car in which L. M. was passenger, by the negligence of the defendant and its servants, was thrown from the track, and said L. M. was, without fault on his part, thereupon and thereby immediately killed.

5. That said L. M. left him surviving, as his only heirs, E. M., his widow, and F. M., his daughter, a child of years, and G. M., his son, a child of years, [etc.] his only children, and next of kin, all of whom were dependent upon him for support; that said children were also dependent upon the said L. M. for nurture and education; that thereby said E. M., F. M., and G. M., [etc.,] have been injured by the death of L. M. in the amount of $

Wherefore, the plaintiff, as such administrator [or executor], asks judgment in said amount of $ and for such other relief as may

be proper, and for costs.

[Verification.]

A. B., Attorney for plaintiff.

PORM No. 904-By representative, for wrongful death caused by collision. [Title of court and cause.]

1-3. [Same as in preceding form.]

4. That the defendant and its servants and employees so negligently and unskilfully conducted itself and themselves in the management of said train of cars, and in not keeping the track of said

to

railroad clear of other cars [or state such other acts of defendant as may have caused the injury complained of], that said train, while proceeding from was violently run into by and collided with another train running [or standing] on said track, thereby causing the car in which said [decedent] was traveling to become wrecked [or allege other facts, describing how said train was wrecked or thrown from the tracks, as the case may be], and the said [naming decedent] was thereby fatally injured, his death resulting immediately therefrom [or state when death so resulted].

5. [Same as paragraph 5 in preceding form.] [Concluding part.]

FORM No. 905-By heir at law against street railway corporation, for damages resulting from the death of a minor child caused by negligent operation of street-cars.

(In Schneider v. Market Street R. Co., 134 Cal. 482; 66 Pac. 734.) [Title of court and cause.]

Plaintiff complains of defendant, and for cause of action alleges: 1. That she is the mother of Carl Richard Schneider, hereinafter mentioned, and his only surviving heir at law.

2. That at all the times herein mentioned defendant was, and now is, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the state of California, with its principal place of business at the city and county of San Francisco, state of California.

3. That at all the times hereinafter mentioned the defendant was the owner, and in the possession of, and employed in, the management and operation of certain street railroads in the city and county of San Francisco, together with the cars, rolling-stock, and appurtenances thereof.

4. That upon the 9th day of December, 1898, defendant was operating its system of street railroads upon East Street, in said city and county, and was engaged in running street-cars over and upon said

street.

5. That upon the said 9th day of December, 1898, at about the hour at 6:30 o'clock P. M., Carl Richard Schneider was crossing East Street where the same intersects with Pacific Street, in said city and county.

6. That while said Carl Richard Schneider was crossing East Street aforesaid where the same intersects with Pacific Street, a car

of said defendant, The Market Street Railway Company, in charge of its agents, servants, and employees, crossed Pacific Street where it intersects with East Street, going towards the north along East Street at a high rate of speed, to wit, in excess of eight miles per hour, and, without ringing a bell or sounding a gong, or without any other warning or any warning, violently struck said Carl Richard Schneider in the head, fracturing his skull and killing him instantly.

7. That in crossing East Street where the same intersects with Pacific Street, in said city and county of San Francisco, the defendant and the persons in charge of said car, to wit, the conductor and motorman, permitted said car to approach said street-crossing within a distance of twenty-five feet and less, without ringing a bell or sounding a gong, nor was any such bell or gong rung or sounded at all while said car was approaching or passing over said street-crossing.

8. That at all the times herein mentioned there was in full force and effect in said city and county of San Francisco a certain ordinance, duly and regularly adopted and passed by the board of supervisors thereof, and in full force and effect on and after November 11, 1882, and known as order No. 1694 of the board of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco, by which said order it was ordained that "It shall be unlawful for the engineer, driver, conductor, or person in charge of any street-car, train of street-cars, grip-car, or dummy, propelled by means of wire ropes attached to stationary steam-engines or a locomotive engine, or by electric motor, to permit said street-car, train of street-cars, grip-car, or dummy, to approach a street crossing in said city and county within a distance of twenty-five feet without ringing a bell or sounding a gong, which bell or gong must be rung or sounded until said street-car, train of street-cars, grip-car, or dummy car, shall have passed over said street-crossing."

9. That the death of said Carl Richard Schneider resulted directly and proximately from the gross and reckless negligence of defendant, and its agents, servants, and employees in charge of and running said car at said time, to wit, first, in crossing Pacific Street where it intersects with East Street, at a high rate of speed, to wit, in excess of eight miles per hour; second, in permitting said car to approach Pacific Street where the same intersects with East Street,

within a distance of twenty-five feet or less, without ringing a bell or sounding a gong.

10. [Same as paragraph 9, omitting the specifications of negligence.]

11. That by reason of the death of said Carl Richard Schneider through the gross and reckless negligence of the defendant and its agents, servants, and employees in charge of and running said car at said time, plaintiff has been greatly damaged, to wit, in the sum of $25,000, no part of which has been paid.

Wherefore, plaintiff prays judgment against defendant for the sum of $25,000, together with costs of suit.

[Verification.]

William J. Herrin, Attorney for plaintiff.

FORM No. 906-By husband and minor children, to recover damages for death of wife and mother of said minors.

(In Johnson v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 154 Cal. 285; 97 Pac. 520.)

[Title of court.]

Frank W. Johnson, and Olin W.

Johnson and Leslie H. Johnson, by C. F. Carrier, their guardian ad litem, plaintiffs,

V.

Southern Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation, defendant.

[Introductory part.]

1. That the plaintiff Leslie H. Johnson is a minor, of the age of seventeen years, and plaintiff Olin W. Johnson is a minor, of the age of thirteen years; that on the 1st day of November, 1901, the superior court of the county of Santa Barbara, state of California, by its order duly given and made on said date, appointed C. F. Carrier, an attorney and counselor at law of this court, guardian ad litem for said minor plaintiffs herein, Leslie H. Johnson and Olin W. Johnson. 2. That the defendant is, and was at all the times hereinafter mentioned, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of California, for the purpose, among other things, of maintaining and operating a single track steam railroad, of a standard gauge, commencing at or near San Miguel, in the county of San Luis Obispo, and running thence southerly through the counties of

San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles, to and through the town of Sagus, in Los Angeles County; that at all the times hereinafter mentioned defendant was maintaining and operating such steam railroad, and was the owner of the track, rollingstock, and other appurtenances thereto belonging, of the said Southern Facific Railroad Company.

3. That said railroad, above five miles west of the city of Santa Barbara, crosses obliquely the county road known as Hollister Avenue, about ninety rods east of the place where the road known as the Modoc Road enters said Hollister Avenue, the acute angle formed thereby being about thirty degrees; that the said crossing is an overhead one, the track being upon the bridge over said road, and the public road excavated so as to pass under the bridge, and being hedged by the sides of the cut on each side; that said bridge is supported by three abutments, one on each side of the county road and one in the middle; that the space between said abutments is about twelve feet, and said abutments are about eighty feet in length; that by reason of trees and other obstacles the view up and down the track is very much obstructed, so that persons driving along Hollister Avenue can not see approaching trains; that by reason of the said construction of said crossing the same is a dangerous one to persons driving along Hollister Avenue.

4. That on the 25th day of July, 1901, Katherine S. Johnson, the wife of the plaintiff Frank W. Johnson, and the mother of the plaintiffs Leslie H. Johnson and Olin W. Johnson, was driving from plaintiffs' home near Goleta along Hollister Avenue towards the city of Santa Barbara, and, as she approached said crossing, defendant caused one of its locomotives, with a train of cars attached thereto, to approach said crossing at a high rate of speed, and in so doing disregarded its duty to give signals of such approach, but, on the contrary, caused said train to approach negligently and carelessly and without signaling, either by blowing a whistle or ringing a bell, or by flag, or otherwise; that the said Katherine S. Johnson was therefore unaware of the approach of said train, and began to drive under said crossing before the passage of said train, and just as her horse and wagon were under said bridge said train passed over the same, negligently and carelessly as aforesaid.

5. That in consequence of the dangerous character of said crossing as maintained by defendant, and of the failure on its part by reason