Lazarus v. New York Cent. R. Co.

Second Circuit

Lazarus v. New York Cent. R. Co.

299 F. 599, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 3111

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 28, 1924

DocketNo. 242

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 299 F. 599 (Lazarus v. New York Cent. R. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lazarus v. New York Cent. R. Co., 299 F. 599, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 3111 (2d Cir. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff’s goods were delivered by the carrier defendant short on August 21, 1917. This action was begun September 29, 1919. The only question at bar is whether the trial court erred in refusing permission for the jury to declare whether a reasonable time for the delivery of the goods missing had or had not expired before September 29, 1917.

[1] We held in First National Bank v. Pipe, etc., Co., 273 Fed. 105, that where the facts are clearly .established, or are undisputed on admitted, reasonable time is a question of law, and therefore to be decided by the court. Of course, there are circumstances when the answer to the query of reasonable time depends upon conflicting facts, and even conflicting opinions. For an example, see Goddard v. Crefield Mills, 21 C. C. A. 530, 75 Fed. 818.

In this case there are no disputed facts at all. Indeed, the only thing unknown in the whole story as told in our previous decision is how, when, and where plaintiff’s goods disappeared from the carrier’s custody. Under such circumstances it was for the court to say when the reasonable time expired, and when, therefore, the two-year period of limitation began to run. In the case first above cited we pointed out that to call the determination of such a question a matter of law is not, perhaps, strictly logical, but it is at all events thoroughly understood.

[2] We agree with the trial judge that a reasonable time for the delivery of these goods expired more than two years prior to the institution of action. Therefore the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff’s goods were delivered by the carrier defendant short on August 21, 1917. This action was begun September 29, 1919. The only question at bar is whether the trial court erred in refusing permission for the jury to declare whether a reasonable time for the delivery of the goods missing had or had not expired before September 29, 1917.

[1] We held in First National Bank v. Pipe, etc., Co., 273 Fed. 105, that where the facts are clearly .established, or are undisputed on admitted, reasonable time is a question of law, and therefore to be decided by the court. Of course, there are circumstances when the answer to the query of reasonable time depends upon conflicting facts, and even conflicting opinions. For an example, see Goddard v. Crefield Mills, 21 C. C. A. 530, 75 Fed. 818.

In this case there are no disputed facts at all. Indeed, the only thing unknown in the whole story as told in our previous decision is how, when, and where plaintiff’s goods disappeared from the carrier’s custody. Under such circumstances it was for the court to say when the reasonable time expired, and when, therefore, the two-year period of limitation began to run. In the case first above cited we pointed out that to call the determination of such a question a matter of law is not, perhaps, strictly logical, but it is at all events thoroughly understood.

[2] We agree with the trial judge that a reasonable time for the delivery of these goods expired more than two years prior to the institution of action. Therefore the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 F. 599, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 3111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lazarus-v-new-york-cent-r-co-ca2-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack