James v. Henry, Civ. A. 57-1957.
| Decision Date | 17 December 1957 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. 57-1957. |
| Citation | 157 F. Supp. 226 |
| Parties | Joseph E. JAMES, Plaintiff, v. Clarence HENRY and Arthur Edney, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Virgin Islands |
Warren H. Young, Christiansted, V. I., for plaintiff.
Almeric L. Christian, Christiansted, V. I., for defendants.
The defendants have moved to dismiss this action for damages to the plaintiff's automobile resulting from a collision with an automobile owned by the defendant Edney and being driven by the defendant Henry. The accident is alleged in the complaint to have been caused solely by the fault and negligence of the defendant Henry. The defendants in their motion allege that the action should be dismissed because it was not brought within the period of time limited by law which they assert is two years after the cause of action arose. The plaintiff on the other hand argues that the statute applicable to such a suit as this permits it to be brought within six years after that event. It appears from the complaint that the suit in this case was brought on September 4, 1957, while the accident out of which the cause of action arose took place on July 24, 1955.
The statutory provisions involved are paragraphs (3) (D) and (5) (A) of section 31 of title 5 of the Virgin Islands Code which came into force on September 1, 1957, and which were taken without material change from paragraphs (B) Fourth and (D) First of section 2 of chapter 2 of title 3 of the former Codes of St. Croix and St. Thomas and St. John which were in turn derived from sections 838 and 840 of the Compiled Laws of the Territory of Alaska, 1913; Burch v. Burch, 3 Cir., 1952, 195 F.2d 799, 805, and are, therefore, to be interpreted in the light of the Alaska law. Burch v. Burch, 3 Cir., 1952, 195 F.2d 799, 811. The relevant provisions of the Code are as follows:
If this is an "action for * * * injuring personal property" within the meaning of paragraph (3) (D) of section 31 the action was timely brought since that paragraph allows six years in which to bring it. But if not it is barred by paragraph (5) (A) which allows only two years to bring "an action * * * for any injury to the * * * rights of another not arising on contract and not herein especially enumerated." I am satisfied that the specific limitation of six years imposed by 5 V.I.C. sec. 31 (3) (D) is applicable to the present case rather than the two...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ali v. Gibson
...4082 was construed by the Federal Government and in the federal courts as of the time we adopted the section. See James v. Henry, 157 F.Supp. 226, 3 V.I. 273, 276 (D.V.I.1957). Williams v. Dowling, 318 F.2d 642, 4 V.I. 465, 469 (3d Cir. 1963). Government of the Virgin Islands v. Carr, 451 F......
-
Ali v. Gibson
...4082 was construed by the federal government and in the federal courts as of the time we adopted the section. See James v. Henry, 157 F.Supp. 226, 3 V.I. 273, 276 (D.V.I. 1957); Williams v. Dowling, 318 F.2d 642, 4 V.I. 465, 469 (3d Cir. 1963); Government of the Virgin Islands v. Carr, 451 ......
-
Umlic Vp LLC v. Matthias
...from Alaska in this case, because the limitations laws of the Virgin Islands were borrowed from Alaska's laws. See James v. Henry, 157 F.Supp. 226, 227 (D.Vi.1957) (Maris, J.). Thus, Alaska court decisions that postdate the Virgin Islands' adoption of Alaska law, while not binding, may be 7......
-
Umlic VP LLC v. Matthias (In re in Remainder of Parcel No.7 Sorgenfrim)
...from Alaska in this case, because the limitations laws of the Virgin Islands were borrowed from Alaska's laws. See James v. Henry, 157 F.Supp. 226, 227 (D.Vi.1957) (Maris, J.). Thus, Alaska court decisions that postdate the Virgin Islands' adoption of Alaska law, while not binding, may be p......