Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "75721451",
    "label": "Letters Received to Burton E. Emory, June 7, 1927",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75721451"
}

{
    "id": "75721451",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75721451",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Letters Received to Burton E. Emory, June 7, 1927",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75721451",
    "collections": [
        "Safety Light Collection",
        "Records Related to Radium Dial Painters"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0000951.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0000951.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0000951.jpg",
    "imageCount": 2,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75721451",
    "naId": 75721451,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "photo",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0000951.jpg",
    "mediaId": "ff9606c5ea37af0c",
    "ocrText": "REOEIV: BP\nCOLLINS & CORBIN\nJUN 8 1927\nCOUNSELLORS AT LAW\nCLEMENT K. CORBIN\nROBERT J. BAIN\nEDWARD A.. MARKLEY\nDAVID A. NEWTON\n1 EXCHANGE PLACE\nCHARLES w. BROADHURST\nJERSEY CITY, N. J.\nHOWARD F. MC INTYRE\nFRANK A. BOEHLER\nJune 7, 1927.\nLUMING\nGrace Fryer vs. U. S. Radium Corporat ion\nBurton E. Emory, Esq.,\nManager, Claim Department,\nAetna Life Insurance Company,\nNew York City.\nDear Mr. Emory:\nYour favor of the 2nd instant together with enclosures\nin the above was duly received.\nWe haveconsiñered the question of removing this case\nto the Federal Court with Mr. Lee, President of your assured,\nand we agreed that the case should not be removed for a number\nof reasons. In the first place, if the case is removed to the\nFederal Court, we would not have the benefit of a testimonial\nexamination of the plaintiff before trial or of interrogatories.\nIn the Federal Court the case would be reached for trial within\ntwo or three months while in the Supreme Court, Essex County,\nwhere it is now pending, it would not be reached for trial for\na year.\nThe question whether or not the action is barred by our\nstatute of limitations is an interesting one and we are going to\nhave it passed upon by Chiof Justice Gummere on motion before we\ngo into the merits of the controversy. We have served notice of\nmotion to strike out the complaint on the ground that the action\nis barred because it was not brought within two years from the\ndate of the injury. The motion will be argued next Saturday,\nJune 11, unless adjourned. If the motion is decided adversely to\nus, we shall then file answer and go into the merits. At that time\nwe shall arrange for the investigation files which Mr. Lee has ac-\ncess to and work with him in the preparation of the case for trial.\nWe no te that you are in a position to place at our dis-\nposal the entire services of one investigator and as soon as we\nare ready for him, we shall advise you.\nMr. . Markley was unable to see Mr. Lee because he was fast\nin court at the time Mr. Lee called. Mr. Broadhurst saw Mr. Lee\nand a copy of memorandum prepared by Mr. Broadhurst for Mr. Markley,\ndated June 30, is herewith enclosed for your file.\nYours very truly,\nEAM: 0\nCOLLINS & CORBIN"
}