Lapsley v. Pub. Serv. Corp. of N.J.
Decision Date | 02 March 1908 |
Citation | 75 N.J.L. 266,68 A. 1113 |
Parties | LAPSLEY v. PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Action by Catharine Lapsley, as administratrix of the estate of James Lapsley, deceased, against the Public Service Corporation of New Jersey. On demurrer to declaration. Sustained.
Argued June term, 1907, before GUMMERE, C. J., and REED, J.
Patrick J. Dolan, for plaintiff. Hobart Tuttle, for defendant
This action is brought by the plaintiff to recover the pecuniary loss sustained by the widow and next of kin of her decedent, James Lapsley, by his death, which is averred in the declaration to have been caused by the wrongful act and neglect of the defendant company.
The sole ground of demurrer relied upon by the defendant is that the declaration fails to aver that the present action was commenced within 12 calendar months after the death of the plaintiff's decedent, as required by the second section of the act of March 3, 1848 (P. L. p. 151), which provides for the recovery of damages in cases where the death of a person is caused by wrongful act, neglect, or default . The statute referred to, after setting forth what shall create liability, and who shall bring the action, contains a proviso which declares that every action brought under its authority shall be commenced within 12 calendar months after the death occurs. In the case of County, Adm'x, v. Pacific, etc., Co., 67 N. J. Law, 54, 50 Atl. 906, Mr. Justice Garrison, discussing this proviso, says: To the same effect is the following declaration of Waite, C. J., in the case of the Steamer Harrisburg, 119 U. S. 199, 7 Sup. Ct. 140, 30 L. Ed. 358: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marshall v. Geo. M. Brewster & Son, Inc.
...element of the plaintiff's cause of action which had to be set forth as part of his complaint. See Lapsley, Adm'x v. Public Service Corp., 75 N.J.L. 266, 267, 68 A. 1113 (Sup.Ct.1908); Bretthauer, Adm'r v. Jacobson, 79 N.J.L. 223, 225, 75 A. 560 (Sup.Ct.1910). Notwithstanding some later cha......
-
Holzsager v. Warburton
...death is an essential element of the cause of action, and not a statute of limitations. This line runs from Lapsley v. Public Service Corp., 75 N.J.L. 266, 68 A. 1113 (Sup.1908), through Eldridge v. Philadelphia etc. Co., 83 N.J.L. 463, 85 A. 179 (E & A 1912) to Marshall v. George M. Brewst......
-
American R. Co. of Porto Rico v. Coronas
... ... Co., 79 N.J.Law, 277, 75 A. 435; ... Lapsley v. Public Service Corporation, 75 N.J.Law ... 266, 68 A ... ...
-
United States v. Steagall
...R. Co., 147 N.C. 234, 60 S.E. 1134, 125 Am. St.Rep. 544; Bowery v. Babbit, 99 Fla. 1151, 128 So. 801; Lapsley v. Public Service Corporation of New Jersey, 75 N.J.L. 266, 68 A. 1113; Mason-Heflin Coal Co. v. Currie, 270 Pa. 221, 113 A. 202; State for use of Dunnigan v. Cobourn, 171 Md. 23, 1......