Norton v. Erie Railroad

163 A.D. 468, 148 N.Y.S. 771, 1914 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6978
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 7, 1914·No. No. 2·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Kruse, P. J.:

The plaintiff seeks to have included in the judgment interest upon the verdict from the time of the death of the plaintiff’s intestate, as is provided by section 1904 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I think that section has no application to this case, for the reason that the action is brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, and the verdict rests solely upon the claim arising under that act. The Federal statute is paramount and exclusive (35 U. S. Stat. at Large, 65, chap. 149, as amd. by 36 id. 291, chap. 143; U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, pp. 1322, 1324; Mondou v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 223 U. S. 1; Taylor v. Taylor, 232 id. 363, revg. sub nom. Matter of Taylor, 204 N. Y. 135), and the defendant’s liability may not be extended by the provisions of our statute. No provision is made in the Federal act for adding such interest to the verdict, and I think the provisions of our statute may not be invoked for that purpose.

The order should, therefore, be affirmed, with ten dollars costs.

All concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

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

Norton v. Erie Railroad, 163 A.D. 468, 148 N.Y.S. 771, 1914 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6978 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

163 A.D. 468 (Norton v. Erie Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dowling v. Stephan
206 Misc. 518 (New York Supreme Court, 1954)
Wyman v. Pan American Airways, Inc.
181 Misc. 963 (New York Supreme Court, 1943)
Murmann v. N.Y., N.H. H.R.R. Co.
180 N.E. 114 (New York Court of Appeals, 1932)
Murmann v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
258 N.Y. 447 (New York Court of Appeals, 1932)
Murmann v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
233 A.D. 446 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1931)
Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co. v. Busby
41 F.2d 617 (Ninth Circuit, 1930)
Mobile O. R. Co. v. Williams
121 So. 722 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1929)
Lynott v. Great Lakes Transit Corp.
202 A.D. 613 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1922)
Bennett v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
187 Iowa 897 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1919)