Blazejowski v. Stadniki

• Decision Date: 06 December 1944
• Citation: 317 Mass. 352,58 N.E.2d 164
• Parties: BLAZEJOWSKI v. STADNIKI.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

317 Mass. 352

58 N.E.2d 164

BLAZEJOWSKI

v.STADNIKI.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

Dec. 6, 1944.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Hampden County; Broadhurst, Judge.

Action of tort by Bronislaw Blazejowski against Walter Stadnicki to recover for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff was struck by an automobile owned and operated by defendant.A motion of defendant for a directed verdict was denied subject to his exception, the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, and defendant brings exceptions.

Exceptions overruled.

Before FIELD, C. J., and QUA, DOLAN, WILKINS, and SPALDING, JJ.

J. F. Egan, of Springfield, for plaintiff.

J. V. Constantine, of Springfield, for defendant.

WILKINS, Justice.

This is an action of tort to recover for personal injuries sustained on April 27, 1941, when the plaintiff, a pedestrian on a public way in Springfield, was struck by an automobile owned and operated by the defendant, a resident of Chicopee and a member of the United States Army on furlough.From the date of the accident until his discharge on September 8, 1941, the defendant was stationed at Camp Edwards in this Commonwealth.The date of the commencement of the action was August 28, 1942.The statute of limitations was pleaded in the answer.A motion of the defendant for a directed verdict was denied subject to his exception.The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.

The sole question is whether by reason of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, Act of October 17, 1940, c. 888, § 205, 54 U.S.Sts. at Large, 1181, as amended by the Act of October 6, 1942, c. 581, § 5, 56 U.S.Sts. at Large, 770, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 525, the period of military service should be included in computing the time for bringing action under G.L. (Ter.Ed.)c. 260, § 4, as amended, which reads, ‘actions of tort for bodily injuries * * * the payment of judgments in which is required to be secured by chapterninety * * * shall be commenced only within one year next after the cause of action accrues.’This is a statute of limitations.McLearn v. Hill, 276 Mass. 519, 522, 177 N.E. 617, 77 A.L.R. 1039;DeCosta v. Ye Craftsman Studio, Inc., 278 Mass. 315, 180 N.E. 151;Ford v. Rogovin, 289 Mass. 549, 194 N.E. 719;Gallo v. Foley, 296 Mass. 306, 310, 5 N.E.2d 425;Brown v. Great American Indemnity Co., 298 Mass. 101, 103, 104, 9 N.E.2d 547, 111 A.L.R. 1065.

Section 205 of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 reads: ‘The period of military service shall not be included in computing any period * * * limited by any law * * * for the bringing of any action or proceeding in any court * * * by or against any person in military service or by or against his heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns, whether such cause of action * * * shall have accrued prior to or during the period of such service.’Section 201 provides for stay of proceedings (1) by the court in its discretion on its own motion; or (2) on application by a plaintiff or defendant in military service ‘unless, in the opinion of the court, the ability of plaintiff to prosecute the action or the defendant to conduct his defense is not materially affected by reason of his military service’(54 U.S.Sts. at Large, 1181).By section 102the act applies to State courts(54 U.S.Sts. at Large, 1179).Section 100 gives the purpose of the legislation: ‘In order to provide for, strengthen, and expedite the national defense under the emergent conditions which are threatening the peace and security of the United States and to enable the United States the more successfully to fulfill the requirements of the national defense, provision is hereby made to suspend enforcement of civil liabilities, in certain cases, of persons in the military service of the United States in order to enable such persons to devote their entire energy to the defense needs of the Nation, and to this end the following provisions are made for the temporary suspension of legal proceedings and transactions which may prejudice the civil rights of persons in such service during the period herein specified over which this Act remains in force’(54 U.S.Sts. at Large, 1179).

The defendant rightly does not question the validity of the act of Congress or the Federal power to affect a State statute of limitations.SeeStewart v. Kahn, 11 Wall. 493, 505, 506, 20 L.Ed. 176;Perkins v. Manning, 59 Ariz. 60, 64, 122 P.2d 857;Poston v. Ebert, 221 Mich. 361, 367, 368, 191 N.W. 202,193 N.W. 201;Erickson v. Macy, 231 N.Y. 86, 91, 131 N.E. 744, 16 A.L.R. 1322;Kosel v. First National Bank, 55 N.D. 445, 448, 214 N.W. 249;Konkel v. State, 168 Wis. 335, 340, 341, 170 N.W. 715;3 Mass.L.Q. No. 4,215;130 A.L.R. 774;147 A.L.R. 1388.See alsoHoffman v. Charlestown Five Cents Savings Bank, 231 Mass. 324, 330, 121 N.E. 15.

The defendant's contention is that, properly construed, the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 does not authorize a civilian to use the fact of the military service of an adverse party to the prejudice of the latter's civil rights, and that, as applied to the case at bar, the defendant alone had the right under the Federal statute to invoke its provisions to toll the Statestatute of limitations.The defendant relies on the avowed purpose of the legislation as restricting the broad scope of section 205, which literally applies to ‘the bringing of any action * * * by or against any person in military service.’‘It is a remedial statute and is to be construed liberally to suppress the mischief intended to be put down and to advance the remedy which it was intended to afford.De Casta v. Ye Craftsman Studio Inc., 278 Mass. 315, 317, 180 N.E. 151.’O'Roak v. Lloyds Casualty Co.285 Mass. 532, 536, 189 N.E. 571, 572.SeeCommonwealth v. Welosky, 276 Mass. 398, 401, 402, 177 N.E. 656.

‘The Act of 1940 was a substantial reenactment of that of 1918.’Boone v. Lightner, 319 U.S. 561, 565, 63 S.Ct. 1223, 1226, 87 L.Ed. 1587.SeeSoldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act, Act ofMarch 8, 1918, c. 20, 40 U.S.Sts. at Large, 440, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 101 et seq.Consequently, judicial references to either relief act are equally pertinent to the present question.In Clark v. Mechanics' American National Bank, 8 Cir., 282 F. 589, 591, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit said of the earlier act, ‘The act of Congress is comprehensive, and, as stated in section 100, it was the purpose to extend protection to persons in military service in order to prevent injury to their civil rights during their terms of service and to enable them to devote their entire energy to the military needs of the nation.* * * A statute of this nature should be liberally construed in favor of the rights of the men engaged in military service, absorbed by the exacting duties required of him, and unable to give attention to matters of private business.’Concerning the later act, it was said in Boone v. Lightner, 319 U.S. 561, 575, 63 S.Ct. 1223, 1231, 87 L.Ed. 1587, ‘The Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act is always to be liberally construed to protect those who have been obliged to drop their own affairs to take up the burdens of the nation.’SeeLynn Institution for Savings v. Taff, 314 Mass. 380, 386, 50 N.E.2d 203;Royster v. Lederle, 6 Cir., 128 F.2d 197, 199(and seeRoyster v. Ruggerio, D.C., 2 F.R.D. 429);Lightner v. Boone, 222 N.C. 205, 209, 210, 22 S.E.2d 426;Lanham v. Cline, D.C., 44 F.Supp. 897, 899;Bowsman v. Peterson, D.C.45 F.Supp. 741, 743,Swiderski v. Moodenbaugh, D.C., 45 F.Supp. 790;Easterling v. Murphey, Tex.Civ.App., 11 S.W.2d 329, 333;In re Bashor, 16 Wash.2d 168, 170, 132 P.2d 1027;Johnson v. Johnson, 59 Cal.App.2d 375, 382, 139 P.2d 33.See alsoInstitution for Savings in Newburyport, Petitioner, 309 Mass. 12, 33 N.E.2d 526, 137 A.L.R. 448.

In the light of the foregoing what is the effect of the Federal statute in the circumstances of this case?The language of section 205 of the 1940 act before it was amended in 1942 is identical with section 205 of the 1918 act.SeeAct ofMarch 8, 1918, c. 20, 40 U.S.Sts. at Large, 443.The amendment of 1942 did not make any change in section 205 now material.There have been references to section 205 of the 1918enactment in decisions of this and other courts.‘That section merely provides that the period of military service shall...