Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co, 378

Citation58 S.Ct. 507,82 L.Ed. 745,303 U.S. 197
Decision Date14 February 1938
Docket NumberNo. 378,378
PartiesMATY v. GRASSELLI CHEMICAL CO
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Messrs. Thomas F. Gain and Charles L. Guerin, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner.

Mr. Louis Rudner, of Trenton, N.J., for respondent.

Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner (plaintiff) filed a complaint alleging that he was injured while employed in the silicate department of respondent's (defendant's) chemical plant. Later, and more than two years after the date of his injuries, he amended his complaint. The only effect of the amend- ment was to broaden the description of the place of employment where the injuries were sustained so as to include the phosphate department located in the same plant but in a different building 500 feet removed from the silicate department.

The sole question is: Did the New Jersey statute of limitations of two years bar the amendment because it set out a new cause of action?

The cause, originally brought in the New Jersey state court, was removed, because of diversity of citizenship, to the District Court of New Jersey, where a verdict for plaintiff was set aside and judgment entered for defendant. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the amendment to the complaint set out a new cause of action and was barred by the New Jersey statute of limitations.1

The pertinent part of the New Jersey statute of limitations reads:2 'All actions hereafter accruing for injuries to persons caused by the wrongful act, neglect or default of any * * * corporation or corporations within this state, shall be commenced and instituted within two years next after the cause of such action shall have accrued and not after.'

The original complaint alleged:

'1. The plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant in the month of November, 1933, and for some time prior thereto at defendant's plant in Grasselli, County of Union and State of New Jersey.

'2. The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as furnace man, operator and general worker in the Silicate Department of defendant's plant.'

The complaint further alleged that plaintiff was injured while so employed by inhaling gases or injurious substances proximately caused by respondent's failure to protect plaintiff from unnecessary dangers and to provide plaintiff a reasonably safe place in which to work.

The amendment—added more than two years after the injuries were sustained—caused paragraph 2 of the complaint to read as follows: '2. The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as furnace man, operator and general worker in the Silicate Department of defendant's plant and was also employed in other Departments of the defendant's plant where he performed his duties as he was directed to do during his employment in the Phosphate Department and Dorr department.' (New matter represented by italics.)

This amendment did not change plaintiff's cause of action. The original action was brought for injuries sustained by inhaling harmful substances while the plaintiff was in the defendant's employ previous to and including November, 1933. The essentials of this cause of action were employment; injury by or from harmful gases or substances while engaged in the employment; and proof that the injuries resulted from the negligent failure of defendant to protect plaintiff from unnecessary dangers and to provide plaintiff with a reasonably safe place in which to work. The responsibility of respondent was the same whether the harmful gases or substances were inhaled in the silicate department, the phosphate department, the dorr department, or any other department where plaintiff was performing his duties under his employment. It is not reasonably possible to say that petitioner's right of recovery under the original complaint and under the amended complaint were two separate and distinct causes of action.

Petitioner can have only one recovery for the one single injury alleged as a result of a breach of one continuing duty under one continuous employment.

The New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals very...

To continue reading

Request your trial
81 cases
  • Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co. v. Sylvania Indust. Corp.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 3 Junio 1946
    ...but its importance consists in its effectiveness * * * to accomplish the end of a just judgment." Maty v. Grasselli Co., 303 U.S. 197, 200, 201, 58 S.Ct. 507, 509, 82 L.Ed. 745. 17 My colleagues seem to say that, since patent-abuse is so important that a court must consider it even if not p......
  • Sellers v. Regents of University of California
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 17 Septiembre 1970
    ...and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits. Cf. Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 58 S.Ct. 507, 82 L.Ed. 745." Furthermore, in considering whether injunctive relief should be granted, a federal district court should cons......
  • York v. Guaranty Trust Co. of New York
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 25 Mayo 1944
    ...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. Memphis Cotton Oil Co., 288 U.S. 62, 68, 69, 53 S.Ct. 278, 77 L.Ed. But, for the reason......
  • Michelsen v. Penney
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 19 Marzo 1943
    ...back under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 15(c), and the earlier law it codifies, therefore followed. Maty v. Grasselli Chem. Co., 303 U.S. 197, 58 S.Ct. 507, 82 L.Ed. 745; United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co., 288 U.S. 62, 53 S.Ct. 278, 77 L.Ed. 619; Glint Factors v. Schnapp, 2 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 firm's commentaries
  • Patent Law And The Supreme Court: Certiorari Petitions Pending (April 2014)
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 22 Abril 2014
    ...suit is not required to specifically include each element of the claims of the asserted patent. Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barrier......
  • Patent Law And The Supreme Court: Certiorari Petitions Pending (July 2014)
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 8 Julio 2014
    ...suit is not required to specifically include each element of the claims of the asserted patent. Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barrier......
  • Patent Law and the Supreme Court: Certiorari Petitions Denied (July 2014)
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 8 Julio 2014
    ...suit is not required to specifically include each element of the claims of the asserted patent. Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barrier......
  • Patent Law and the Supreme Court: Certiorari Petitions Pending (March 2015)
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 10 Marzo 2015
    ...suit is not required to specifically include each element of the claims of the asserted patent. Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barrier......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT