Boyd, Adm., v. Brazil Block Coal Co. Section 7472 is as follows: "That the mining boss shall visit and examine every working place in the mine at least every alternate day while the miners of such place are, or should be at work, and shall examine and see that each and every working place is properly secured by props or timber, and that safety in all cases is assured, and, when found unsafe, he shall order and direct that no person shall be permitted in an unsafe place, unless it be for the purpose of making it safe. He shall see that a sufficient supply of props, caps, and timber are always on hand at the miners' working places." In addition to the allegations contained in the first paragraph of the complaint, it is alleged in the second paragraph that it became and was the duty of the appellee to visit and examine, by its mining boss, every working place in its mine at least every alternate day while miners employed therein were or should be at work, and to examine and see that each and every working place therein was properly secured by props, or timbers, and that the safety was in all respects assured; and when any of said places were found to be unsafe, it was its duty to order and direct that no person should be permitted in such places unless for the purpose of making it safe; that it was its further duty to see that a sufficient supply of props, caps, and timber was always on hand at the miners' working places. These allegations are followed by the usual allegations of neglect to perform the duty, substantially as found in the first paragraph. The third paragraph is drawn upon the theory that appellee purposely, wilfully, and intentionally violated the provisions of the mining statutes, and for that reason it is liable to appellant on account of the injury to his decedent occasioned thereby, without reference to any question of negligence on his part. The first question to be determined in this appeal is whether, under the statutes, the personal representative of the deceased has any right of action. Counsel for appellee Boyd, Adm., v. Brazil Block Coal Co. insist that he has not, and for that reason, if for no other, the demurrer was by the lower court properly sustained to each paragraph of the complaint. The question is properly raised by the demurrer for want of facts. Pence v. Aughe, 101 Ind. 317; Farris v. Jones, 112 Ind. 498; Wilson v. Galey, 103 Ind. 257. Section 7473 Burns 1894, §5480n Horner 1897, being section thirteen of the act of 1891, under which appellant has brought this action, provides: "That for any injury to person or persons or property occasioned by any violation of this act, or any wilful failure to comply with any of its provisions, a right of action against the owner, operator, agent or lessee shall accrue to the party injured for the direct injury sustained thereby, and in case of loss of life by reason of such violation; a right of action shall accrue to widow, children, or adopted children, or to the parents or parent, or to any other person or persons who were before such loss of life dependent for support on the person or persons so killed, for like recovery for damages for the injury sustained by reason of such loss of life or lives." * * * The language of this section clearly gives the right of action to certain parties named. In Board, etc., v. Davis, 136 Ind. 503, on p. 520, the Supreme Court say as to the interpretation of statutes: "First of all if the words are free from ambiguity and doubt, and express plainly, clearly and distinctly the sense of the framers of the instrument, there is no occasion to resort to other means of interpretation. It is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation. The statute itself furnishes the best means of its own exposition." Under our statute, unless otherwise provided, all suits must be brought in the name of the real party in interest. The estate of the deceased can have no interest in the provision made by the statute. It is not a claim due the estate. The right of action is given the widow, and it is not vested in any other than the beneficiaries therein named. VOL. 25-11 Boyd, Adm., v. Brazil Block Coal Co. When a new right or proceeding is created by statute, and a mode prescribed for enforcing it, that mode must be pursued to the exclusion of all others. Storms v. Stevens, 104 Ind. 46. In Martin v. West, 7 Ind. 657, "the plaintiff claims a right of action under section ten of an act approved March 4, 1853, entitled 'An act to regulate the retailing of spirituous liquors' " etc. The act provided that no person should be permitted to retail spirituous liquors until giving bond conditioned for the keeping of an orderly house and for the payment of fines, penalties, and damages that might be incurred under the provisions of the act. Section ten gave a right of action to any wife, child, parent, guardian, employer, or other person, who should be injured in person or property or means of support by any intoxicated person, or in consequence of the intoxication of any person in his own or her own name "against any person and his sureties on the bond aforesaid, who shall, by retailing spirituous liquors, have caused the intoxication of such person, for all damages sustained." The court held that the statute pointed out the rule of proceeding, namely, by suit on the bond, and that the complaint was therefore defective. Section fourteen of the act of the general assembly of Illinois, upon the subject of miners, entitled "An act to provide for the health and safety of persons employed in coal mines" approved March 27, 1872, R. S. 1874, p. 708, is in substantially the language of section thirteen of the act under consideration. The right of action in case of the death of the husband, occasioned by the wilful violation of the act, is in the widow, etc. The general act of Illinois for wrongful injuries resulting in death is in the personal representative. In the case of Litchfield Coal Co. v. Taylor, 81 Ill. 592, which was an action brought under said act, appellee, in the commencement of the action, sued as administratrix of the estate of decedent, who was her husband. Subsequently, on Boyd, Adm., v. Brazil Block Coal Co. motion, the court allowed the summons and declaration to be amended so that the action might proceed in the name of appellee as widow of the decedent. This amendment was assigned as error. In passing upon the question, the supreme court said: "We are satisfied that the widow was the proper person to bring the action. The fourteenth section of the act expressly authorizes her to bring the suit. Chapter seventy entitled 'Injuries,' R. L. 1874, p. 582, which authorizes an action in the name of the personal representatives did not repeal the fourteenth section of the act entitled 'Miners.' The former act is general, while the act in relation to miners may be regarded as special, and the latter must control as to all cases specially enumerated in the act itself, while the other act, being general, would embrace all other cases." See also, McCormack v. Terre Haute, etc., R. Co., 9 Ind. 283; 1 Waite's Actions & Def., p. 42; Ryan v. Ray, 105 Ind. 101; Bartlett v. Manor, 146 Ind. 621; Fisher v. Tuller, 122 Ind. 31; Gibbs v. City of Hannibal, 82 Mo. 143; McNamara v. Slavens, 76 Mo. 329; Spiva v. Osage Coal, etc., Co., 88 Mo. 72; Shepard v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 3 Mo. App. 553. We think the right of action is limited to the beneficiaries named in the act, and for this reason the judgment of the lower court must be affirmed. The conclusion reached renders it unnecessary to pass upon the other alleged errors. DISSENTING OPINION. HENLEY, J.-I desire at this time to dissent from the conclusion reached by the majority of the court, and express the opinion that the act under which this action was brought is unconstitutional for other reasons than those advanced by counsel for appellee in the case of Maule Coal Co. v. Partenheimer, 155 Ind. 100. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Adams. THE PITTSBURGH, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO AND ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY v. ADAMS, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND. [No. 2,865. Filed Feb. 1, 1900. Rehearing denied June 22, 1900.] RAILROADS.—Injury at Crossing.—Complaint.—A complaint against a railroad company for personal injuries alleging that plaintiff approached defendant's tracks and stopped his horse and dray and listened to ascertain whether a train standing near was about to move, when an employe of defendant, in charge of the train, standing on the main track at the rear of the train, knowing plaintiff was about to cross the tracks and had stopped to listen, motioned with his hand for him to drive across the tracks, and that plaintiff, in attempting to cross the tracks as directed, was struck by the train, and injured, is insufficient, where it was not shown that such employe was acting in the line of his duty, or that he had any power or authority to bind the defendant by his act. From the Madison Superior Court. John L. Rupe, for appellant. Reversed. BLACK, J.-A demurrer to the complaint of the appellee against the appellant for want of sufficient facts was overruled in the Henry Circuit Court, where this cause was commenced. An answer in denial was filed, and the venue was then changed to the court below, where the cause was tried by jury, and a general verdict was returned in favor of the appellee for $3,000, and judgment was rendered accordingly. In the complaint there were allegations describing at length the location of the appellant's railway tracks and the surroundings, in the town of New Castle. It was shown that a street in said town known as Broad street, extending east and west, was crossed by the main track of the appellant's railway running in a northwesterly direction; that at a short distance east of the crossing and north of said main track was the freight depot with an elevated platform, along the north side of a side-track which extended from a |