Ragan v. Merchants Transfer Warehouse Co, No. 522

• Court: United States Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: DOUGLAS
• Citation: 69 S.Ct. 1233,93 L.Ed. 1520,337 U.S. 530
• Parties: RAGAN v. MERCHANTS TRANSFER & WAREHOUSE CO., Inc
• Docket Number: No. 522
• Decision Date: 20 June 1949

337 U.S. 530 69 S.Ct. 1233 93 L.Ed. 1520 RAGAN

v.

MERCHANTS TRANSFER & WAREHOUSE CO., Inc.

No. 522. Argued April 20, 1949. Decided June 20, 1949. Rehearing Denied Oct. 10, 1949. See 70 S.Ct. 33.

Page 531

Mr. Cornelius Roach, Kansas City, Mo., for petitioner.

Mr. Douglas Hudson, Fort Scott, Kan., for respondent.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case, involving a highway accident which occurred on October 1, 1943, came to the District Court for Kansas by reason of diversity of citizenship. Petitioner instituted it there on September 4, 1945, by filing the complaint with the court—the procedure specified by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.¹ As prescribed by those Rules, a summons was issued. ² Service was had on December 28, 1945. Kansas has a two-year statute of limitations applicable to such tort claims.³ Respondent pleaded it and moved for summary judgment. Petitioner claimed that the filing of the complaint tolled the statute. Respondent argued that by reason of a Kansas statute⁴ the statute of limitations was not tolled until service of the summons.

Page 532

The District Court struck the defense and denied respondent's motion. A trial was had and a verdict rendered for petitioner. The Court of Appeals reversed. 10 Cir., 170 F.2d 987. It ruled, after a review of Kansas authorities, that the requirement of service of summons within the statutory period was an integral part of that state's statute of limitations. It accordingly held that Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 65 S.Ct. 1464, 89 L.Ed. 2079, 160 A.L.R. 1231, governed and tha respondent's motion for summary judgment should have been sustained. The case is here on a petition for certiorari which we granted because of the importance of the question presented.

Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188, 114 A.L.R. 1487, was premised on the theory that in diversity cases the rights enjoyed under local law should not vary because enforcement of those rights was sought in the federal court rather than in the state court. If recovery could not be had in the state court, it should be denied in the federal court. Otherwise, those authorized to invoke the diversity jurisdiction would gain advantages over those confined to state courts. Guaranty Trust Co. v. York applied that principle to statutes of limitations on the theory that, where one is barred from recovery in the state court, he should likewise be barred in the federal court.

It is conceded that if the present case were in a Kansas court it would be barred. The theory of Guaranty Trust Co. v. York would therefore seem to bar it in the federal court, as the Court of Appeals held. The force of that reasoning is sought to be avoided by the argument that

Page 533

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure determine the manner in which an action is commenced in the federal courts—a matter of procedure which the principle of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins does not control. It is accordingly argued that since the suit was properly commenced in the federal court before the Kansas...