Gogoliu v. Williams, No. 40.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
Writing for the CourtMINTURN, J.
Citation91 N.J.Law 266,102 A. 667
Decision Date19 November 1917
Docket NumberNo. 40.
PartiesGOGOLIU et al. v. WILLIAMS.
102 A. 667
91 N.J.Law 266

GOGOLIU et al.
v.
WILLIAMS.

No. 40.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Nov. 19, 1917.


(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Action by Wilhelm Gogoliu and others against Alfred W. Williams. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Leonard Van Lenten, of Paterson, for appellants.

Mackay & Mackay, of Hackensack, for appellee.

MINTURN, J. The plaintiffs in the year 1907 employed defendant, a surveyor, to make a survey and map of their property in the township of Saddle river. Thereafter in 1910 the plaintiffs erected two houses on the land thus surveyed, and in 1915 they discovered that the survey and map included land to which they had no title, and which they were thereby obliged to purchase at a cost of $1,500. Before pleading in defense, defendant moved to strike out the complaint on the ground that the cause of action, if any existed, was barred by the statute of limita-

tions. The justice who heard the motion denied it, with leave to defendant to plead over, which was done; the answer alleging the bar of the statute of limitations. The parties proceeding to trial a judgment of nonsuit was directed upon the pleadings. The legal inquiry presented is whether the statute begins to run from the time the survey and map were completed under the contract of employment, in which event the direction of the nonsuit was correct, or from the time of the plaintiffs' discovery of the error, in which case the statute will not be applicable as a bar to plaintiffs' recovery.

It is to be observed that the gravamen of the action is the hiring of a professional man to perform a service, within the line of his profession, which he negligently performed to the damage of the person employing him. In such a situation, quite uniformly, the rule has been declared to be that the statute of limitations begins to run from the time of the occurrence of the breach of duty, and not from the time of the discovery of actual damage, as a result of such breach. The cases upon the subject are collected in the various digests, and a reference to some of them is all the determination this case would seem to require. Wilcox v. Plummer, 4 Pet. 172, 7 L. Ed. 821; Troup v. Smith, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 33; Freeholders v. Veghte, 44 N. J. Law, 509, 13 Ann. Cas. 696; 25 Cyc. 1083-1116.

Perhaps the most succinct statement of the rule is that contained in 17 E. C. L. 76, viz.:

"As a general rule where an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • Biglioli v. Durotest Corp., No. A--502
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • October 1, 1956
    ...784 (E. & A.1940)); Sullivan v. Stout, 120 N.J.L. 304, 199 A. 1, 118 A.L.R. 211 (E. & A.1938); Gogolin v. Williams, 91 N.J.L. 266, 267, 102 A. 667 (E. & A.1917).' In Weinstein v. Blanchard, 109 N.J.L. 332, 336, 337, 162 A. 601 (E. & A.1932) the court held that the statute runs from the time......
  • Fernandi v. Strully, No. A--100
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • June 30, 1961
    ...has a cause of action. See Sullivan v. Stout, 120 N.J.L. 304, 199 A. 1, 118 A.L.R. 211 (E. & A.1938); Gogolin v. Williams, 91 N.J.L. 266, 102 A. 667 (E. & A. 1917); Martucci v. Koppers Co., 58 F.Supp. 707 (D.C.N.J.1945). In reaching this result the courts have evidently considered that the ......
  • Mumford v. Staton, Whaley and Price, No. 356
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • July 11, 1969
    ...that the statute 'begins to run from the time of the occurrence of [255 A.2d 365] the breach of duty.' Gogolin v. Williams, 91 N.J.L. 266, 102 A. 667 (E. & A. 1917). See also Sullivan v. Stout, 120 N.J.L. 304, 199 A. 1, (118 A.L.R. 211) (E. & A. 1938) (which concerns a suit against an attor......
  • Mobley v. Murray County, No. 9812.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • February 14, 1934
    ...156, 13 Ann. Cas. 692, Painter Fertilizer Company v. Kil-Tone Co., 105 N. J. Law, 109, 143 A. 332, Gogolin v. Williams, 91 N. J. Law, 266, 102 A. 667, and numerous other cases. Without regard to these foreign adjudications, the same doctrine has frequently been held by this court. As said i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • Biglioli v. Durotest Corp., No. A--502
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • October 1, 1956
    ...784 (E. & A.1940)); Sullivan v. Stout, 120 N.J.L. 304, 199 A. 1, 118 A.L.R. 211 (E. & A.1938); Gogolin v. Williams, 91 N.J.L. 266, 267, 102 A. 667 (E. & A.1917).' In Weinstein v. Blanchard, 109 N.J.L. 332, 336, 337, 162 A. 601 (E. & A.1932) the court held that the statute runs from the time......
  • Fernandi v. Strully, No. A--100
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • June 30, 1961
    ...has a cause of action. See Sullivan v. Stout, 120 N.J.L. 304, 199 A. 1, 118 A.L.R. 211 (E. & A.1938); Gogolin v. Williams, 91 N.J.L. 266, 102 A. 667 (E. & A. 1917); Martucci v. Koppers Co., 58 F.Supp. 707 (D.C.N.J.1945). In reaching this result the courts have evidently considered that the ......
  • Mumford v. Staton, Whaley and Price, No. 356
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • July 11, 1969
    ...that the statute 'begins to run from the time of the occurrence of [255 A.2d 365] the breach of duty.' Gogolin v. Williams, 91 N.J.L. 266, 102 A. 667 (E. & A. 1917). See also Sullivan v. Stout, 120 N.J.L. 304, 199 A. 1, (118 A.L.R. 211) (E. & A. 1938) (which concerns a suit against an attor......
  • Mobley v. Murray County, No. 9812.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • February 14, 1934
    ...156, 13 Ann. Cas. 692, Painter Fertilizer Company v. Kil-Tone Co., 105 N. J. Law, 109, 143 A. 332, Gogolin v. Williams, 91 N. J. Law, 266, 102 A. 667, and numerous other cases. Without regard to these foreign adjudications, the same doctrine has frequently been held by this court. As said i......
  • 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