Lillibridge v. Riley
| Decision Date | 22 May 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 19958.,19958. |
| Citation | 316 F.2d 232 |
| Parties | Mrs. Mildred LILLIBRIDGE, Appellant, v. Dr. Wells RILEY, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Ernest Bostick, Smyrna, Ga., J. Milton Grubbs, Jr., Grubbs & Prosser, Marietta, Ga., for appellant.
Sam F. Lowe, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
Before JONES and BELL, Circuit Judges, and GROOMS, District Judge.
On January 11, 1960, the appellant, Mildred Lillibridge, brought a malpractice action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, against the appellee, Wells Riley, a practicing physician, asserting that Dr. Riley had negligently made an erroneous diagnosis and failed properly to treat her as his patient. The complaint alleged that Mrs. Lillibridge was a citizen of Ohio and that Dr. Riley was a citizen of Georgia. Diversity of citizenship was the asserted ground of federal jurisdiction. On October 5, 1961, Dr. Riley filed a motion to dismiss because of an absence of diversity of citizenship. The motion was granted on January 22, 1962. On April 8, 1962, Mrs. Lillibridge filed a new suit in the district court alleging the same cause of action as in her former complaint and stating that she had returned to and had re-established a residence in Ohio. During the pendency of the first action the Georgia statute of limitations1 had run. Reliance was placed upon the Georgia Renewal Statute,2 so called, to prevent the statute of limitations from being a bar. Dr. Riley again moved to dismiss. The district court, citing McFarland v. McFarland, 151 Ga. 9, 105 S.E. 596, and McClendon & Co. v. Hernando Phosphate Co., 100 Ga. 219, 28 S.E. 152, reached the conclusion that because of the absence of diversity the court had no jurisdiction of the first action and that it was a nullity and hence the renewal statute did not apply. The second action was dismissed as barred by limitations. Mrs. Lillibridge has appealed.
The authorities relied upon by the district court fully sustain the conclusion there reached. In order for the Georgia Renewal Statute to prevent the operation of the statute of limitations, the first suit must have been one in which the court had jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter. Brinson v. Kramer, 72 Ga.App. 63, 33 S.E.2d 41; Cutliffe v. Pryse, 187 Ga. 51, 200 S.E. 124; Southern Flour & Grain Co. v. Simmons, 49 Ga.App. 517, 176 S.E. 121; McFarland v. McFarland, supra; Ternest v. Georgia Coast & Piedmont...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bonhiver v. Graff
...statute of limitations. See, e.g., Ellis v. Lynch, 106 F.Supp. 100 (D.N.J.1952) (failure to meet jurisdictional amount); Lillibridge v. Riley, 316 F.2d 232 (5 Cir. 1963) (failure to meet diversity requirement); and Hudnall v. Kelly, 388 F.Supp. 1352 (N.D.Ga.1975). Cf. Nix v. Spector Freight......
-
Hudnall v. Kelly
...does not act to bar the running of the statute of limitations. As the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stated in Lillibridge v. Riley, 316 F.2d 232, 233 (5th Cir. 1963): In order for the Georgia Renewal Statute to prevent the operation of the statute of limitations, the first suit must have b......
-
Silverberg v. Thomson McKinnon Securities, Inc.
...in personam jurisdiction does not toll federal securities limitation period), aff'd, 414 F.2d 256, 257 (6th Cir.1969); Lillibridge v. Riley, 316 F.2d 232 (5th Cir.1963). II. Plaintiffs also appeal the dismissal of their RICO claim. The district court held that plaintiffs' RICO claim was bar......
-
Subacz v. Town Tower Motel Corp.
...the expiration of the period of limitations was barred. Osman v. Draskovich, 314 F.Supp. 1115 (E.D. Wis.1970). See also Lillibridge v. Riley, 316 F.2d 232 (5th Cir.1963) where the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that in order for the Georgia Renewal statute to prevent the operation of ......