Carpenter v. Erie R. Co.

Third Circuit

Carpenter v. Erie R. Co.

132 F.2d 362, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 2596

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedDecember 16, 1942

Docket8179

StatusPublished

Cited by22 cases

This text of 132 F.2d 362 (Carpenter v. Erie R. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carpenter v. Erie R. Co., 132 F.2d 362, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 2596 (3d Cir. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this suit brought by an injured employee against a railroad company under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U. S.C.A. § 51 et seq., it appears from the face of the complaint that the plaintiff’s cause of action arose more than fourteen years before the suit was commenced. Since compliance with the two years limitation provided by Section 56 of the act is a condition precedent to recovery (Wabash Ry. Co. v. Bridal, 8 Cir., 1938, 94 F.2d 117) *363 and it is, therefore, incumbent upon one suing under the act to allege and prove that his cause of action was brought within the time limited (American R. Co. of Porto Rico v. Coronas, 1 Cir., 1916, 230 F. 545) the district court had no alternative but to dismiss the complaint. Its judgment is accordingly affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In this suit brought by an injured employee against a railroad company under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U. S.C.A. § 51 et seq., it appears from the face of the complaint that the plaintiff’s cause of action arose more than fourteen years before the suit was commenced. Since compliance with the two years limitation provided by Section 56 of the act is a condition precedent to recovery (Wabash Ry. Co. v. Bridal, 8 Cir., 1938, 94 F.2d 117) *363 and it is, therefore, incumbent upon one suing under the act to allege and prove that his cause of action was brought within the time limited (American R. Co. of Porto Rico v. Coronas, 1 Cir., 1916, 230 F. 545) the district court had no alternative but to dismiss the complaint. Its judgment is accordingly affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 F.2d 362, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 2596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carpenter-v-erie-r-co-ca3-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack