Link v. Carolina & Northwestern Railway Co.

150 S.E. 672, 198 N.C. 78, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 414
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided December 11, 1929·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Stacy, 0. J.

Tbe action was properly dismissed on authority of Murray v. R. R., 196 N. C., 695, 146 S. E., 801, and Belch v. R. R., 176 N. C., 22, 96 S. E., 640.

Tbe Federal Employers’ Liability Act (45 U. S. C. A., sec. 56) provides: “No action shall be maintained under tbis chapter unless commenced within two years from tbe day the cause of action accrued.”

There is no provision in this statute extending or tolling the time for filing suit by reason of infancy or other disability. Gillette v. Del. L. & W. Ry., 102 Atl. (N. J.), 673 (minority of plaintiff); Bement v. Grand Rapids Ry. Co., 160 N. W. (Mich.), 424 (fraudulent representations of defendant’s agent which caused plaintiff to delay); Alvarado v. So. Pac. Ry. Co., 193 S. W. (Tex.), 1108 (insanity resulting from the injury).

Indeed, it has been held with us that a provision in a contract of insurance, limiting the time for instituting suit to recover under the policy, is not affected by the minority of the plaintiff. Beard v. Sovereign Lodge, 184 N. C., 154, 113 S. E., 661; Heilig v. Ins. Co., 152 N. C., 358, 67 S. E., 927.

Affirmed.

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

Link v. Carolina & Northwestern Railway Co., 150 S.E. 672, 198 N.C. 78, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 414 (N.C. 1929).

150 S.E. 672 (Link v. Carolina & Northwestern Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Miles
249 S.W.2d 160 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1952)
Wichita Falls & Southern Railroad v. Durham
120 S.W.2d 803 (Texas Supreme Court, 1938)
Davis v. Norfolk Southern Railroad
157 S.E. 11 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)