Morales v. Moore-McCormack Lines, 1125.
Decision Date | 09 January 1953 |
Docket Number | No. 1125.,1125. |
Citation | 109 F. Supp. 585 |
Parties | MORALES et al. v. MOORE-McCORMACK LINES, Inc. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Milton Schwartz, Houston, Tex., for libellants.
Royston & Rayzor, M. L. Cook, Houston, Tex., for respondent.
Each claiming a bodily injury on May 6, 1950, from fumigants or disinfectants in wheat on board the Steamship Mormacmoon, alleged to have been owned and operated by respondent, libellants, who claim to have been longshoremen working with such wheat, filed this suit October 31, 1952, two years and nearly six months after the alleged injuries, seeking to recover damages therefor. Apparently they have received compensation from their employers under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, Title 33, U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq. Respondent has filed Exceptions, claiming laches on the part of libellants in the filing of such suit. This is a hearing under Local District Court Rule 25 of such Exceptions.
1. The applicable rule is correctly stated in a case in this Court.1 In such case, it is said:
The applicable Texas Statute is the Texas Two Year Statute of Limitation2, Article 5526, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes.
Libellants' pleadings are entirely silent on the question of whether there be special circumstances which excuse their delay in bringing the suit. I conclude that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss should be granted. Kane v. Union of Soviet, 3 Cir., 189 F.2d 303; McGrath v. Panama Ry. Co., 5 Cir., 298 F. 303; Redman v. United States, 2 Cir., 176 F.2d 713; McChristian v. Lykes Bros. S. S. Co., D.C., 94 F.Supp. 149.
2. While libellants, as stated, have not set forth in their pleadings any reasons for the delay in filing this suit, nor have they answered Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, they have filed a Brief in which they set forth matters which they claim excuse the delay. It is I think not sufficient to bring forward such matters only in their brief, but I have considered same. They say (italicising mine):
If libellants as they say "began to feel ill" during the Spring and Summer of 1952, it was negligence for them to wait, and they were guilty of laches in waiting, until the "fall of 1952" to consult their "private physicians" and until October 31, 1952, to file this suit.
3. In their brief, libellants also say (italics mine):
To continue reading
Request your trial-
West v. Upper Mississippi Towing Corporation
...359 U.S. 908, 79 S.Ct. 584, 3 L.Ed.2d 572 (1959); and Morales v. Moore-McCormack Lines, 208 F.2d 218, 221 (5th Cir.), affirming 109 F.Supp. 585 (S.D.Tex.1953). Plaintiff's allegations that "promises and assurances" made by the defendant caused prejudicial reliance and delay in filing suit a......
-
Petition of Esso Shipping Co.
...5 Cir., 152 F.2d 368; Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Oberlechner, 161 F.2d 180; The Sydfold, 2 Cir., 86 F.2d 611; Morales v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., D. C., 109 F.Supp. 585, Id., 5 Cir., 208 F.2d 218. The cases cited by claimant do not hold to the 2: Looking now to the facts shown by the......
-
Wilson v. Edwards Transp. Co.
...Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Rhine, 5 Cir., 152 F.2d 368; Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Oberlechner, 5 Cir., 161 F.2d 180; Morales v. Moore-McCormack, D.C., 109 F.Supp. 585; Id., 5 Cir., 208 F.2d 218; McChristian v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., D.C., 94 F.Supp. Let appropriate order be drawn and prese......
-
Morales v. Moore-McCormack Lines
...it, the district judge exercised a wise and informed discretion. The order dismissing the libel is, therefore, affirmed. 1 Morales v. Moore McCormack, 109 F.Supp. 585. 2 Gardner v. Panama R. R. Co., 342 U.S. 29, 72 S.Ct. 12, 13, 96 L.Ed. 3 Redman v. United States, 2 Cir., 176 F.2d 713; Kane......