Kaye v. May
| Decision Date | 16 February 1924 |
| Docket Number | 3052. |
| Citation | 296 F. 450 |
| Parties | KAYE v. MAY. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
M Casewell Heine and Heine, Bradner & Laird, all of Newark N.J. (Palmer Bradner, of Newark, N.J., of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
John W McGeehan, Jr., of Newark, N.J., for defendant in error.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
While riding in an automobile belonging to Max Kramrisch, along a highway near the town of Monticello, in Sullivan county N.Y., Abraham May was killed through a collision between the automobile of Kramrisch and one belonging to Harry Kaye (defendant below, and hereafter called defendant). Harry Kramrisch, Murray Winakor, and Isadore Abramow were in the automobile with Abraham May, and were all plaintiffs in the District Court. All the plaintiffs are residents of the state of New York, and the defendant is a resident of the state of New Jersey. This suit was brought to recover damages suffered on account of the collision. The jury rendered a verdict in behalf of the plaintiff May, but against the other plaintiffs. The defendant is here on writ of error directed to May.
Defendant relies upon three alleged errors.
He contends that the District Court did not have jurisdiction of the suit because the plaintiff neither pleaded nor proved that he had filed in the prerogative court of New Jersey an exemplified copy of the letters of administration granted to him by the surrogate of the city of New York, as required by the statute of New Jersey, which provides that:
'Any executor or administrator by virtue of letters obtained in another state may prosecute any action or sue out execution upon judgment or decree in any court of this state as if his letters had been granted in this state; provided, that such executor or administrator shall first file in the office of the register of the prerogative court an exemplified copy of his letter, and upon such filing may bring all necessary actions in any of the courts of this state; provided, also, that security for the costs may be required from such executor or administrator as if he were a nonresident of this state. ' P.L. 1896, p. 173, Sec. 1; Compiled Statutes of New Jersey, vol. 2, p. 2265, Sec. 21.
This statute applies, however, only when the administrator sues in the right of his intestate, not in a case where he is a party to the transaction, although as administrator. Green v. Heritage, 63 N.J. Law, 455, 456, 43 A. 698. In the case of Morse et al. v. King, 73 N.J. Law, 548, 63 A. 986, 118 Am.St.Rep. 702, the court said that these statutory provisions 'apply only in those cases in which the executor sues in the right of his decedent; in other words, where the cause of action accrued to the decedent during his lifetime. ' The administrator in these proceedings is not suing in the right of his intestate; neither did the cause of action accrue to the decedent in his lifetime.
The defendant cannot prevail for another reason: When the letters of administration granted in New York, were offered in evidence, plaintiff was asked the following question:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Schechter
...v. Micou, 114 U. S. 218, 223, 5 S. Ct. 857, 29 L. Ed. 94; Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U. S. 1, 6, 6 S. Ct. 242, 29 L. Ed. 535; Kaye v. May (C. C. A.) 296 F. 450, 453. The Greater New York Charter is a statute of the state of New York, and section 1172 of that Charter provided that the New York ......
-
Boland v. Love
...the laws of the several states, Moore v. Pywell, 1907, 29 App.D.C. 312, 324, 9 L.R.A.,N.S., 1078, whether pleaded or not, Kaye v. May, 3 Cir., 1924, 296 F. 450, 453; Parker v. Parker, 10 Cir., 1936, 82 F.2d 575, 577. But lex loci delicti governs, Giddings v. Zellan, 1947, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 92......
-
United States v. ALA Schechter Poultry Corporation
...may be taken of these provisions by the court. Martin's Adm'r v. B. & O. R. R., 151 U. S. 673, 14 S. Ct. 533, 38 L. Ed. 311; Kaye v. May (C. C. A.) 296 F. 450. The Poultry Code which will be judicially noticed by this court (Thornton v. United States, supra) contemplates inspection in accor......
-
Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Carlson, 2387.
...Mather v. Stokely, 1 Cir., 218 F. 764; Brown v. Ford Motor Co., 10 Cir., 48 F.2d 732; Parker v. Parker, 10 Cir., 82 F.2d 575; Kaye v. May, 3 Cir., 296 F. 450, that means no more than that one relying upon a statute of a foreign state need not plead it. It does not follow, however, that a co......