New York Cent Co v. Kinney
| Decision Date | 21 November 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 110,110 |
| Citation | 43 S.Ct. 122,67 L.Ed. 294,260 U.S. 340 |
| Parties | NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO. v. KINNEY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Maurice C. Spratt, of Buffalo, N. Y., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 340-342 intentionally omitted] Mr. Hamilton Ward, of Buffalo, N. Y., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 342-344 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit for personal injuries to the plaintiff, the respondent in this Court, caused by the collision of a train upon which he was employed by the defendant, the petitioner, as an engineer, with a train of the Michigan Central Railroad Company. After several trials and about seven years and a half after the suit was begun the plaintiff was allowed to amend his complaint by alleging that at the time of the collision the plaintiff and defendant were engaged in interstate commerce. He got the present judgment under the Employers' Liability Act of April 22, 1908, c. 149, 35 Stat. 65 (Comp. St. §§ 8657-8665), the jury having found that the parties were so engaged. The defendant contended that the amendment introduced a new cause of action and under § 6 of the Act could not be allowed after the two years' limitation had run. See also Act of April 5, 1910 c. 143, 36 Stat. 291. A writ of certiorari was granted to dispose of this doubt.
The original complaint set forth facts that would have given a cause of action at common law, under the statutes of New York or the Act of Congress, as one or another law might govern. It alleged a notice, required by the New York statute and to that extent pointed to that. The amended complaint, against the petitioner alone, while it introduced the allegations objected to, retained the allegation as to notice, and was treated by the trial Court, seemingly with the approval of the higher Courts of the State, as warranting a recovery under either law as the jury should find. There is nothing in the statutes of the United States to prevent this form of pleading, as is indicated incidentally in the case that we are about to cite upon the main point.
In Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Wulf, 226 U. S. 570, 33 Sup. Ct. 135, 57 L. Ed. 355, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 134, the declaration was by the mother as sole heir and next of kin of an employee of the plaintiff in error, in terms referring to a statute of Kansas giving her right of action for injuries resulting in death. An amendment was allowed, more than two years after the injury, in which the plaintiff declared both as sole beneficiary and next of kin and as administratrix and relied both on the Kansas law and on the Act of Congress. The plaintiff got a judgment under the Act of Congress which was sustained by this Court although the original declaration by the plaintiff could not be attributed to the Employers' Liability Act, because the plaintiff sued only in her personal capacity...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lloyd v. Alton Railroad Co.
...Co. v. Wulf, 226 U.S. 570; Title 45, U.S.C.A., Sec. 55; Vaughn v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 177 Mo. App. 155, 164 S.W. 144; N.Y. Central R. Co. v. Kinney, 260 U.S. 340; Esmar v. Haeussler, 234 Mo. App. 217, 115 S.W. (2d) 54; Sec. 958, R.S. 1939; Haddow v. Public Service Co., 38 S.W. (2d) 284......
-
N. & G. Taylor Co. v. Anderson
...the amendment is not here in question. It is also urged, on the authority of certain language used in N. Y. Cent. R. Co. v. Kinney, 260 U. S. 340, 345, 43 S. Ct. 122, 67 L. Ed. 294, that the plea of the statute of limitations is less effective in the federal courts than in state courts. The......
-
York v. Guaranty Trust Co. of New York
...570, 576, 33 S.Ct. 135, 57 L.Ed. 355; Atwood v. National Bank of Lima, 6 Cir., 115 F.2d 861, 863: New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. v. Kinney, 260 U.S. 340, 346, 43 S.Ct. 122, 67 L.Ed. 294; Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197, 200, 201, 58 S.Ct. 507, 82 L.Ed. 745; United States v. Memp......
-
Steingut v. Guaranty Trust Co. of New York
...conceptions which should not be extended beyond the bounds of common sense and justice. New York Cent. & H. Railroad Co. v. Kinney, 1922, 260 U.S. 340, 346, 43 S.Ct. 122, 67 L.Ed. 294. This does not suggest that the statute of limitations, which to be serviceable must be rigid, should be re......