Ask the Scholar
Page 7 of 9
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
7.
was reversed by the Court of Errors and Appeals, on writ
of error, the latter court holding as follows:
"1. . A railroad company's excavation disturbed
the foundation of an adjacent church edifice. In
1882 a settlement was made, whereby the company e-
rected a retaining wall for the protection of the
church property, and paid for repairs on the build-
ing, taking a receipt acknowledging such payment in
full settlement and discharge of all damages done to
the church, adding that the company was to pay for
all work in progress. In 1887 the church sustained
damages arising from failure of the wall to sustain
the vibration by running trains, for which damages
suit was instituted in 1891. Held that, the injury
for which the suit was brought, being entirely dis-
tinet from that arising from the first excavation,
it was not embraced in the original settlement.
112. The injury for which the suit was brought
being a new cause of action arising in 1887, limi- -
tations began to run from that date" (Same case, ,on
error, 66 N.J.L., 218; 49 Atl., 1030) .
See also-
Parker vs. Hickson, 88 N.J.L., 443; 97 Atl. 46.
Weinstein VS. Blanchard, 152 Atl., 787.
DeFeo vs. People's Gas Co. &c. 6 N.J.Misc.,790;
142 Atl 756.
Howard vs. West Jersey &c S. S. R. Co., 141 Atl.,
755; affirmed 144 Atl., , 919.
Pigford vs. Norfalk-Southern R. Co., 160 N. .C.,
93; 75 S. E., 860.
Pearsal] VS. Smith, 149 U. S., 231; 37 Law. Ed.,
713.
It is respectfully submitted, in behalf of the
plaintiffs, that upon the authority of the cases cited
above, and a multitude of other cases to the same effect,
too numerous to cite, that an actionable cause does not
Page data
- Page
- 7
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- photo
- Media ID
- 719eacfe35b548c8
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 75726225
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "75726225",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75726225",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Deposition, February 20, 1931",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75726225",
"collections": [
"Safety Light Collection",
"Records Related to Radium Dial Painters"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0002382_Page_1.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0002382_Page_1.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0002382_Page_1.jpg",
"imageCount": 9,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "75726225",
"label": "Deposition, February 20, 1931",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75726225"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "75726225",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75726225",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Deposition, February 20, 1931",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75726225",
"collections": [
"Safety Light Collection",
"Records Related to Radium Dial Painters"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0002382_Page_1.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0002382_Page_1.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0002382_Page_1.jpg",
"imageCount": 9,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75726225",
"naId": 75726225,
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 7,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "photo",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0002382_Page_7.jpg",
"mediaId": "719eacfe35b548c8",
"ocrText": "7.\nwas reversed by the Court of Errors and Appeals, on writ\nof error, the latter court holding as follows:\n\"1. . A railroad company's excavation disturbed\nthe foundation of an adjacent church edifice. In\n1882 a settlement was made, whereby the company e-\nrected a retaining wall for the protection of the\nchurch property, and paid for repairs on the build-\ning, taking a receipt acknowledging such payment in\nfull settlement and discharge of all damages done to\nthe church, adding that the company was to pay for\nall work in progress. In 1887 the church sustained\ndamages arising from failure of the wall to sustain\nthe vibration by running trains, for which damages\nsuit was instituted in 1891. Held that, the injury\nfor which the suit was brought, being entirely dis-\ntinet from that arising from the first excavation,\nit was not embraced in the original settlement.\n112. The injury for which the suit was brought\nbeing a new cause of action arising in 1887, limi- -\ntations began to run from that date\" (Same case, ,on\nerror, 66 N.J.L., 218; 49 Atl., 1030) .\nSee also-\nParker vs. Hickson, 88 N.J.L., 443; 97 Atl. 46.\nWeinstein VS. Blanchard, 152 Atl., 787.\nDeFeo vs. People's Gas Co. &c. 6 N.J.Misc.,790;\n142 Atl 756.\nHoward vs. West Jersey &c S. S. R. Co., 141 Atl.,\n755; affirmed 144 Atl., , 919.\nPigford vs. Norfalk-Southern R. Co., 160 N. .C.,\n93; 75 S. E., 860.\nPearsal] VS. Smith, 149 U. S., 231; 37 Law. Ed.,\n713.\nIt is respectfully submitted, in behalf of the\nplaintiffs, that upon the authority of the cases cited\nabove, and a multitude of other cases to the same effect,\ntoo numerous to cite, that an actionable cause does not"
}