Peterson v. Delaware River Ferry Co. of New Jersey
| Citation | 190 Pa. 364,42 A. 955 |
| Decision Date | 20 March 1899 |
| Docket Number | 364 |
| Parties | Annie C. Peterson, by her next friend and father, Andrew Peterson, Appellant, v. The Delaware River Ferry Company of New Jersey |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
Argued January 19, 1899
Appeal, No. 364, Jan. T., 1898, by plaintiff, from order of C.P. No. 1, Phila. Co., December T., 1897, No. 662, refusing to take off nonsuit. Affirmed.
Trespass for personal injuries.
The facts sufficiently appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
The court entered a nonsuit on the ground that the action was barred by the Act of June 24, 1895, P.L. 236.
Error assigned was refusal to take off nonsuit.
Judgment affirmed.
Joseph A. Culbert, with him George Albert Drovin and John B Rutherford, for appellant.
Thomas Hart, Jr., with him Gavin W. Hart, for appellee.
Before STERRETT, C.J., GREEN, WILLIAMS, McCOLLUM, MITCHELL, DEAN and FELL, JJ.
The plaintiff brought suit February 4, 1898, for injuries from the alleged negligence of defendant's employees on May 17, 1892, and was nonsuited on the ground that her action was too late. The case raises the same questions as to the construction and constitutionality of the Act of June 24, 1895, P.L. 236, as those which have been discussed and decided in Rodebaugh v. Phila. Traction Co., opinion filed herewith, ante, p. 358. It is not necessary to do more than refer to that opinion.
The only additional points in the present case are that the plaintiff was at the time of the injury and still is a minor, and that a suit was brought in her behalf within the statutory period against the Atlantic Railroad Company, which is alleged to be operating "to a certain extent" the boats of the present defendant.
The act of 1895 as held in the case referred to, is a general act in the nature of a statute of limitations. Its terms are general, and make no exceptions in favor of persons under disability. The settled rule is that infants as well as all others are bound by the provisions of such statutes. "A saving from the operation of statutes for disabilities must be expressed or it does not exist:" Warfield v Fox, 53 Pa. 382. "There is no limitation in the act which excludes persons under disabilities. 'Any person' means every person. If persons who are minors should be excluded by reason of their disability to make contracts they would be deprived of the benefit of the act, and that would be a hardship to which they ought not to be subject without express words of exclusion:" Williams...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Milburn v. Girard
...§ 34, it impliedly has been repealed. Walker v. Mummert, 394 Pa. 146, 148, 146 A.2d 289, 290 (1958), citing Peterson v. Delaware River Ferry Co., 190 Pa. 364, 42 A. 955 (1899); Rodebaugh v. Philadelphia Traction Co., 190 Pa. 358, 42 A. 953 10 The Court of Appeals stated: "We must decline to......
-
Kedra v. City of Philadelphia
...held to have done so by implication. Walker v. Mummert, 394 Pa. 146, 148, 146 A.2d 289, 290 (1958), citing Peterson v. Delaware River Ferry Co., 190 Pa. 364, 42 A. 955 (1899); see Rodebaugh v. Philadelphia Traction Co., 190 Pa. 358, 42 A. 953 17 As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has noted, ......
-
Davis v. Chrisp
... ... within 2 years. Petrovis v. Del. River & Ferry ... Co., 42 A. 955. Amendment introducing a new or ... Chicago, 237 ... Ill. 159, 86 N.E. 670; Peterson v. Delaware ... River & Ferry Co., 190 Pa. 364, 42 A. 955; ... ...
-
Conard v. Stitzel
...disabilities, including imprisonment,15 does not apply. Walker v. Mummert, 394 Pa. 146, 146 A.2d 289 (1958); Peterson v. Delaware River Ferry Co., 190 Pa. 364, 42 A. 955 (1899). The rule was established in Peterson, which involved minority. It was re-affirmed in Walker, where the circumstan......