Williams v. Quebec S.S. Co.
Decision Date | 02 December 1903 |
Citation | 126 F. 591 |
Parties | WILLIAMS v. QUEBEC S.S. CO., Limited. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Arthur F. Engel and Andrew J. Smith, for libellant.
Butler Notman, Joline & Mynderse and Frederick M. Brown, for respondent.
This action was brought on the 8th day of July, 1903, to recover the damages caused by the death of Henry Williams, through an alleged defective and insecure boom, used in discharging the respondent's steamer Wilmerdine, at New York, on or about the 12th day of May, 1899. While the boom was being used, the decedent was struck by an iron hook, in some way connected with it, and almost instantly killed.
The respondent excepts to the libel upon the grounds:
'First That the libel does not set forth facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. a cause of action.
Second That the libel fails to recite a cause of action cognizable under the general maritime laws or under the laws and statutes of the United States.
Third: That the libel fails to recite a cause of action under section 1902 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of New York, or under any other statute of the State of New York, in that it appears upon the face of the libel that this action was not begun within two years after the death of the decedent, Henry Williams, and in that it appears upon the face of the libel that within two years after the death of said decedent and until the 16th day of February, 1903, the libellant had not been appointed administratrix of said decedent.
Fourth: That it appears upon the face of the libel that this action was not begun within the time limited therefor by the laws of the State of New York.'
There is no such right of action in Admiralty as the libel sets forth, apart from statutory provisions. The Harrisburg, 119 U.S. 199, 7 Sup.Ct. 140, 30 L.Ed. 358. Whatever right the libellant may have in this action must be under section 1902 of the New York Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as follows:
'Section 1902. Action for causing death by negligence, etc.
The executor or administrator of a decedent, who has left, him or her surviving, a husband, wife, or next of kin, may maintain an action to recover damages for a wrongful act, neglect, or default, by which the decedent's death was caused against a natural person who, or a corporation which, would have been liable to an action in favor of the decedent, by reason thereof, if death had not ensued. Such an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Silva v. City and County of Honolulu
...v. Pub. Hous. Comm'r, 107 F.Supp. 270, 274-76 (W.D.Mich.1952); Straub v. Jaeger, 9 F.R.D. 672, 675 (E.D.Pa.1950); Williams v. Quebec S.S. Co., 126 F. 591, 592 (S.D.N.Y.1903) ("The language of the Act is explicit: `Such an action must be commenced within two years after the decedent's death,......
-
Cashman v. Hedberg
...A. 709; Hanna v. Jeffersonville R. Co., 32 Ind. 113; Carden v. Louisville & N. R. R., 101 Ky. 113, 39 S.W. 1027; Williams v. Quebec S. S. Co., D.C. 126 F. 591; 70 A.L.R. 472. This identical question has been decided here, adversely to plaintiff, in Rugland v. Anderson, 30 Minn. 386, 15 N.W.......
-
THE PRINCESS SOPHIA
...A.) 123 F. 475, 476; Swanson v. Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Coast (D. C.) 156 F. 977; Kavanagh v. Folsom (C. C.) 181 F. 401; Williams v. Quebec, etc. (D. C.) 126 F. 591; Denver & Rio Grande R. R. Co. v. United States (C. C. A.) 241 F. 614; Borovitz v. American Hard Rubber Co. (D. C.) 287 F. 36......
-
Continental Cas. Co. v. The Benny Skou
...as binding admiralty to their time limits. Stern v. La Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, D.C., 110 F. 996, 998; Williams v. Quebec S. S. Co., D.C., 126 F. 591; Swanson v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co., D.C., 156 F. 977. Suggestion that delay might be excused in an admiralty death suit is ma......