17 D.C. 556 (D.C.D.C. 1888), 25,416, Lewis v. Washington & G. R. Co.

Docket Nº:At Law. 25,416.
Citation:17 D.C. 556
Opinion Judge:MR. JUSTICE MERRICK:
Party Name:SANFORD LEWIS v. THE WASHINGTON AND GEORGETOWN RAILROAD COMPANY.
Attorney:MESSRS. WM. A. COOK and C. C. COLE, for plaintiff. MESSRS. ENOCH TOTTEN and WALTER D. DAVIDGE, for defendant.
Case Date:October 15, 1888
Court:Supreme Court of District of Columbia
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 556

17 D.C. 556 (D.C.D.C. 1888)

SANFORD LEWIS

v.

THE WASHINGTON AND GEORGETOWN RAILROAD COMPANY.

At Law. No. 25,416.

Supreme Court, District of Columbia.

October 15, 1888

1. Where no cause of action is stated in the original declaration, but is shown for the first time in an amendment thereof, a plea of the Statute of Limitations relates to the time of the filing of the amendment. Affirming Johnson vs. The District, 1 Mackey 427.

2. Where, however, the original declaration states a cause of action, but does it imperfectly and thereafter an amendment is filed, a plea of the Statute of Limitations will relate to the time of the filing of the original declaration.

DEMURRER to a plea of the Statute of Limitations to an amended declaration. Certified to the General Term for hearing in the first instance.

THE CASE is stated in the opinion.

MESSRS. WM. A. COOK and C. C. COLE, for plaintiff.

MESSRS. ENOCH TOTTEN and WALTER D. DAVIDGE, for defendant.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE MERRICK:

This case was certified to this Court to be heard in the first instance upon a demurrer to the plea of the Statute of Limitations. The plaintiff had filed his declaration alleging that he had been injured by the act of a conductor on the Washington and Georgetown Railroad by being thrown upon the ground upon the 5th day of June, 1884, through the carelessness of the conductor operating the car; that his right arm was fractured; that he was badly bruised and injured; and that in consequence he has been confined to his bed and permanently disabled.

In the progress of the cause the plaintiff found it necessary to amend his declaration— at least supposed that it was necessary to amend his delaration, upon the ground that the first declaration was not sufficiently explicit in averring affirmatively that the conductor, was acting as the agent of the defendant, and that the party injured was being carried for hire. Leave was granted by the Court, and the amendment was made to supply these defects, or supposed defects, in the original declaration. Thereupon the Statute of Limitations was pleaded as of the time when the amended declaration was filed. To that plea a demurrer was interposed upon the ground that the Statute of Limitations was not referable to the time when the amended declaration was filed, but was referable to the date of the institution of...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP