Actio personalis moritur cum persona

Actio personalis moritur cum persona 

LITERAL MEANING

A personal right of action dies with the person

ORIGIN

Latin

EXPLANATION

The maxim is first quoted in a case from 1496, where a woman against whom a defamation judgment was issued died before paying the damages to the tort feasor .According to the maxim, actions of tort or contract are destroyed by the death of either the injured or the injuring party. Some legal causes of action can no longer be brought after a person dies, in some cases, defamation.

It has also been applied to actions arising out of contracts of a purely personal nature, e.g., promise to marry. In actions of tort, this was formerly a general rule, but recently its application has been so generally narrowed that it probably affects only actions for libel. However, besides the statutory exceptions mentioned, an action may be brought by the personal representatives of a deceased person for an injury done to his property in his lifetime. Compensation may, however, be recovered by the relatives of a person negligently killed and in some cases of trespass.

In English law , the principle is usually put in the form actio personalis moritur cum persona, an expression of uncertain but post-classical origin. The doctrine is embodied and not peculiar to common law system. The idea belongs to primary strata in universal law. In modern times it has been gradually limited by judicial decisions and is now being still further restricted by legislation. The general rule of the common law was, that if an injury were done either to the person or to the property of another, only the unliquidated damages only could be recovered in satisfaction. However, the action dies with the person to whom, or by whom, the wrong was done.

ILLUSTRATION

If Anita commits betrayal on Raman. However, during the incident, if either party dies, the right of action which was accrued to Raman by the reason of the betrayal is taken away. But if Anita commits a betrayal upon Raman, or do other injuries to him, any right of action which accrues to the third person will not be affected by the death of Raman, so far as the application of the maxim in question is concerned.

CASE LAWS

Girja Nandini And Ors vs Bijendra Narnia Choudhury

Supreme court referred to the above maxim and held that a personal action dies with the person has a limited application. It operates in a limited class of actions ex delicto such as actions for damages for defamation, assault or other personal injuries not causing the death of the party, and in other actions where after the death of the party the relief granted could not be enjoyed or granting it would be nugatory. An action for an account is not an action for damages ex delicto and does not fall within the enumerated classes. Nor is it such that the relief claimed being personal could not be enjoyed after death, or granting it would be nugatory.