Dailey v. New York, Ontario & Western Railway Co.

26 Misc. 539, 57 N.Y.S. 485
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 15, 1899
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 26 Misc. 539 (Dailey v. New York, Ontario & Western Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dailey v. New York, Ontario & Western Railway Co., 26 Misc. 539, 57 N.Y.S. 485 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1899).

Opinion

Hirschberg, J.

The action is to recover damages for the death by negligence of the plaintiff’s decedent in the state of Pennsylvania. One of the defenses is that by the provisions of the Penn[540]*540sylvania statute giving the right of action, suit must be brought “ within one year after the death and not thereafter ”, and it is alleged that more than one year intervened between the death and the bringing of the suit. The plaintiff demurs.

The cause of action is solely statutory. It is not derivative in any respect, but is an original right conferred by statute upon representatives for the benefit of beneficiaries. It accrues in the place of the transaction, but is enforceable here upon principles of comity. In respect of the right of action the lex loci controls, while all details of the remedy are governed by the lex fori. The right is asserted under the law of the place where it arose, but is measured and determined by means of the law of the place where it is enforced. The period of one year limited by the law of Pennsylvania as that within which the action may be brought relates to and qualifies the right itself. At the end of the year the right is as effectually extinguished by the lapse of time as it would be by actual payment. After that date no right of action existed under the laws of the foreign state, and there is, accordingly, no claim to be enforced under the forms of our remedial laws.

Statutes of limitation may either bar the remedy or qualify the right. In the first case they will be found in the lex fori, in the second ease in the lex loci. In cases of contract generally, and of actionable wrongs recognized by the common law, the suit must be brought within the time prescribed by the law of the place where the remedy is sought, even though the law of the country where the contract was entered into or the wrong committed may allow a much longer time in which to bring an action; and the Statute of Limitations of another state, where the contract was made or wrong perpetrated cannot be pleaded in bar. But where a statute gives a right unknown to the common law, and limits the time within which an action shall be brought to assert it, the statutory limitation measures the extent and qualifies the nature of the right conferred, and will be respected and enforced by the courts of any state wherein the plaintiff may sue. 7 Lawson’s Rights and Remedies, § 3738, and cases cited; Cavanagh v. Ocean Steam Nav. Co., 19 Civ. Pro. 393; The Harrisburgh, 119 U. S. 199; Wooden v. W. N. Y. & P. R. R. Co., 126 N. Y. 10; Kiefer v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 12 App. Div. 33; Hill v. Board of Supervisors, 119 N. Y. 347. The demurrer is overruled.

Demurrer overruled.

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

Related

La Verne v. Jackman
228 N.E.2d 249 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1967)
Panzironi v. Heath
197 Misc. 847 (New York Supreme Court, 1950)
Brister v. Wray-Dickinson Co.
159 So. 430 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1935)
Claim of O'Esau v. E. W. Bliss Co.
188 A.D. 385 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1919)
Sharrow v. . Inland Lines, Ltd.
108 N.E. 217 (New York Court of Appeals, 1915)
Pernisi v. John Schmalz' Sons
142 A.D. 53 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1910)
Rosin v. Lidgerwood Manufacturing Co.
89 A.D. 245 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1903)
Colell v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad
80 A.D. 342 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1903)
In re Comesky
83 A.D. 137 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1903)
Comesky v. Village of Suffern
81 N.Y.S. 1049 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1903)
Colell v. Delaware
80 N.Y.S. 675 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 Misc. 539, 57 N.Y.S. 485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dailey-v-new-york-ontario-western-railway-co-nysupct-1899.