
    Pries, Administratrix, Respondent, vs. Ashland Light, Power & Street Railway Company, imp., Appellant.
    
      October 27
    
    
      November 15, 1910.
    
    
      .Death caused by wrongful act, etc.: Pleading: Who are entitled to damages: Nonresident aliens.
    
    1. In an action for death caused by wrongful act, an allegation that decedent “left surviving him his father and mother, . . . who are nonresident aliens, and his sisters,” one of whom is the plaintiff, is construed, in connection with other allegations of the complaint, to mean that the sisters and the decedent were residents of this state.
    :2. Such an allegation negatives the idea that decedent left surviving a widow or children who would be entitled to the damages recoverable for his death.
    3. Nonresident aliens not being within the purview of sees. 4255, 4256, Stats. (Laws of 1907, ch. 581), nor entitled to the damages recoverable thereunder, the existence of such aliens does not debar from the right to such damages other surviving relatives, resident in this state, who would not have such right if the aliens were residents.
    Appeal from an order of tbe circuit court for Ashland ■county: JohN K. Parish, Circuit Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    It appears from the complaint in this action that Walter ■Smith died intestate on April 21, 1909, and that on November 5, 1909, the plaintiff was duly appointed and qualified in the Ashland county court as administratrix of his estate. The complaint alleges that the defendants are domestic corporations conducting their businesses in the city of Ashland. Phe facts alleged charge the defendants with negligence and that such negligence proximately caused the decedent’s death. 'The complaint states:
    “11. That the said Walter Smith left surviving him his •father and mother, Carl Schmidt and Bertha Schmidt, who are nonresident aliens, and his sisters, Mrs. Minnie Brooks, and Ida Pries, the plaintiff herein.
    “12. That the said Ida Pries, sister of plaintiff’s intestate, in bis lifetime was dependent upon and largely supported by said Walter Smith, and in consequence of bis death aforesaid has suffered pecuniary injuries in the sum of ten thousand ($10,000) dollars.”
    The defendants separately demurred to the complaint on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a •cause of action. The. specific objections to the complaint are that the liability created by sees. 4255 and 4256, Stats. ■(Laws.of 1907, ch. 581), and the right to the benefits thereof .Are not available to the plaintiff for the reasons:
    “1. That the complaint does not show any person in being •entitled to take, but does show that the persons in being who would be entitled to take are barred from taking because of ‘their being nonresident aliens.
    “2. Because the complaint does not negative the idea that :a widow or children survived Walter Smith.”
    The trial court overruled each of the separate demurrers. "This is an appeal by the power company from the order overruling its demurrer to the complaint.
    For the appellant there was a brief by Bundy & Wilcox, ¡and oral argument by B. P. Wilcox.
    
    They cited Woodward v. G. & N. W. B. Go. 23 Wis. 400; Broivn v. O. & N. W. B. Go. 102 Wis. 137; Luessen v. Oshkosh E. L. & P. Go. 109 Wis. 94, 95; McMillan v. Spider Balee S. M. & L. Go. 115 Wis. 332, 335; Quinn v. G., M. & St. P. B. Go. 141 Wis. 497; Schmidt v. Menasha W. Co. 99 Wis. 300; Budiger v. •O., St. P., M. & O. B. Go. 94 Wis. 191; Ban v. O., M. & St. P; B. Go. 95 Wis. 69, 74.
    For the respondent the cause was submitted on the brief of 'Gill, Barry & Mahoney.
    
   SiebbcKKR, J.

Does the allegation that the decedent “left •surviving him his father and mother, . . . who are nonresi•dent aliens, and his sisters, Mrs. Minnie Brooks, and Ida Fries, the plaintiff herein,” constitute an allegation that the sisters named are nonresident aliens ? To so bold would be-contrary to tbe evident object of tbe pleader. Tbe rule is-that language in a pleading must be liberally construed so as-to give effect to its object and purpose. Tbe language here used, considered in connection with tbe other allegations of' tbe complaint, conveys tbe idea contended for by tbe plaintiff, namely, that tbe sisters and tbe decedent were residents off this state, and it should be so construed.

Does tbe complaint show that tbe decedent left no widow or children surviving him ? Tbe allegation that tbe decedent’s father and mother and two sisters named are tbe persons who survive him negatives tbe idea that other persons of the-plasses specified in tbe statute as entitled to tbe amount recovered in this kind of actions survived him, and thus makes the-complaint sufficient in this respect.

Tbe principal question presented upon tbe facts alleged is:. Can plaintiff maintain this action for tbe benefit of herself because of tbe pecuniary loss caused her by tbe death of her-brother, it appearing that tbe decedent’s father and mother survive him and are nonresident aliens? In tbe case off McMillan v. Spider Lake S. M. & L. Co. 115 Wis. 332, 91 N. W. 919, it was held that the rights created by secs. 4255- and 4256, Stats. (Laws of 1907, ch. 581), were not conferred, on nonresident aliens. Tbe language employed in framing-tbe statute is general and in its terms is broad enough to include such aliens, but it was considered that, prima facie,. every legislature must be presumed to intend by its enactments to regulate tbe rights which subsist among tbe inhabitants of its own country, and not to affect tbe rights of foreigners, -unless tbe contrary be expressed or be implied from tbe absolute necessity of tbe case. Tbe court there approved tbe case of Deni v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 181 Pa. St. 525, 37 Atl. 558, where it is declared that:

“While it is possible that tbe language of tbe statute may-admit of a construction which would include nonresident alien husbands, widows, children, and parents of the deceased, it is a construction so obviously opposed to the spirit and policy of the statute that we cannot adopt it.”

It was therefore held that the context of the statute showed that the legislature intended to embrace within its terms only such persons of the classes named as were residents of this state. This construction is based upon the idea that the law of a country can operate only within its territory, and, prima facie, embraces only such persons as are within its jurisdiction. Since such nonresident aliens are not within the purview of the law, it must follow that the legislature did not intend that they should be included within its provisions for the purpose of depriving residents of this state of its beneficial objects. This result is logically embraced in the construction given the statute in the McMillan Case, to the effect that it was designed to promote and regulate the interests of the residents of this state. We consider, therefore, that the plaintiff is not debarred from the rights and benefits of the statute by the fact that the decedent left surviving him his nonresident father and mother.

■By the Court. — Order affirmed.  