Ask the Scholar
Page 2 of 6
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
February 8, 1928.
B.F.S. -2-
would Want to be convinced that this is not true before
the Company agrees to any statement of facts.
Second: If the bill of complaint should be
drafted so as to state the facts in accordance with the
agreement, the question of jurisdiction could be raised
by a motion to strike the bill.
As a practical matter
this would not involve any danger of a final decree
against us for in the event that the Vice Chancellor
should strike the bill and should be reversed on appeal
we would then go to hearing on the evidence which might
be offered.
My present view of the situation is
that this is the only way in which we esn safely adopt the
principle involved in the Vice Chancellor's suggestion.
We have another important question to consider
and that is:What will be our position concerning the ques*
tion raised by the Vice Chancellor as to whether or not
the actions are barred at law?
As I understand it, he
suggested today that perhaps the actions were not barred
by the Statute even though the injury commenced and the
cause of action arose more than two years prior to the in-
Page data
- Page
- 2
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- photo
- Media ID
- c389212998687565
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 75722330
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "75722330",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75722330",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Letters Received to Edwin F. Smith, February 8, 1928",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75722330",
"collections": [
"Safety Light Collection",
"Records Related to Radium Dial Painters"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0001205_Page_1.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0001205_Page_1.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0001205_Page_1.jpg",
"imageCount": 6,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "75722330",
"label": "Letters Received to Edwin F. Smith, February 8, 1928",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75722330"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "75722330",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75722330",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Letters Received to Edwin F. Smith, February 8, 1928",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75722330",
"collections": [
"Safety Light Collection",
"Records Related to Radium Dial Painters"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0001205_Page_1.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0001205_Page_1.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0001205_Page_1.jpg",
"imageCount": 6,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75722330",
"naId": 75722330,
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 2,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "photo",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0001205_Page_2.jpg",
"mediaId": "c389212998687565",
"ocrText": "February 8, 1928.\nB.F.S. -2-\nwould Want to be convinced that this is not true before\nthe Company agrees to any statement of facts.\nSecond: If the bill of complaint should be\ndrafted so as to state the facts in accordance with the\nagreement, the question of jurisdiction could be raised\nby a motion to strike the bill.\nAs a practical matter\nthis would not involve any danger of a final decree\nagainst us for in the event that the Vice Chancellor\nshould strike the bill and should be reversed on appeal\nwe would then go to hearing on the evidence which might\nbe offered.\nMy present view of the situation is\nthat this is the only way in which we esn safely adopt the\nprinciple involved in the Vice Chancellor's suggestion.\nWe have another important question to consider\nand that is:What will be our position concerning the ques*\ntion raised by the Vice Chancellor as to whether or not\nthe actions are barred at law?\nAs I understand it, he\nsuggested today that perhaps the actions were not barred\nby the Statute even though the injury commenced and the\ncause of action arose more than two years prior to the in-"
}