Ask the Scholar
Page 18 of 30
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
the cause of such action shall have accrued
and not after. 18 Rev. 1877, P. 594, as amend-
ed P.L. 1896, p. 119, 3 Como. Stat. 3164, sec. 3.
This is the genuine and orthodox statute which was taken from
21 James I, C. 16. In an action at law, the plea of the statute,
regardless of fraud on the pert of the tortfeasor, is alweys a bar
to recovery. The New Jersey courts heve held that the legislature
did not intend that there should be any exceptions to the statute
other then those expressly enacted in othor sections. Moreover,
it appesrs that in the later English statuto of 3 and 4 IV,
C. 27, a cleuse in section 26 expressly saves the remedy under that
statute from the bar of conceeled freud.
In Thorpe V. Corwin, 20 N. J. L. 311, 317, the court said;
"The statute of limitations makes the
lapse of time a positive end le gal bar.
when onee it has begun to run against a
person under no legal disability, it pur-
sues its course, uninterrupted by any sub-
seguent events; and when the period pro-
scribed by the statute has clapsed, the
bar is complete, and its force can neither
ba strongthened or impaired by anything
that has happened in the meantime.
The statute leaves nothing to presumption.
Time alone settles the righta or the par-
ties by the giant forge of the statute."
That is lew today in New Jersey. Freeman V. Conover, 95 N.
J.
L.
89: contra Crawford V. Winterbottom, 88 N. J. L. 588.
In our systen of jurisprudence, equity, in the case of fraud,
has never barred relier to en injured perty who has been in ignorance
of the fraud. Prevost V. Grets, 6 wheaton 481; Bedger V. Badger
69 U.S. 87; Bailey V. Glover, 88 U. S. 342; Exploration company V.
United States, 247 U.S. 435; Howard V. West Jersey Railroad company,
103 M.J.F. 317.
In Bailey V. Glover, supra, the court said in giving its reasons
ror the equitable doetrine:
"They (statutes of limitations) were en-
acted to provent frauds; to prevent parties
from esserting rights after the lapse of
time hed destroyed or impaired the evidence
which would show that such rights never ex-
isted, or had been satisfied, transferred,
Page data
- Page
- 18
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- photo
- Media ID
- 7099b65d621ede38
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 75729134
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "75729134",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75729134",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Deposition, December 17, 1935",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75729134",
"collections": [
"Safety Light Collection",
"Records Related to Radium Dial Painters"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0003274_Page_01.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0003274_Page_01.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0003274_Page_01.jpg",
"imageCount": 30,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "75729134",
"label": "Deposition, December 17, 1935",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75729134"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "75729134",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75729134",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Deposition, December 17, 1935",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75729134",
"collections": [
"Safety Light Collection",
"Records Related to Radium Dial Painters"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0003274_Page_01.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0003274_Page_01.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0003274_Page_01.jpg",
"imageCount": 30,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75729134",
"naId": 75729134,
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 18,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "photo",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0003274_Page_18.jpg",
"mediaId": "7099b65d621ede38",
"ocrText": "the cause of such action shall have accrued\nand not after. 18 Rev. 1877, P. 594, as amend-\ned P.L. 1896, p. 119, 3 Como. Stat. 3164, sec. 3.\nThis is the genuine and orthodox statute which was taken from\n21 James I, C. 16. In an action at law, the plea of the statute,\nregardless of fraud on the pert of the tortfeasor, is alweys a bar\nto recovery. The New Jersey courts heve held that the legislature\ndid not intend that there should be any exceptions to the statute\nother then those expressly enacted in othor sections. Moreover,\nit appesrs that in the later English statuto of 3 and 4 IV,\nC. 27, a cleuse in section 26 expressly saves the remedy under that\nstatute from the bar of conceeled freud.\nIn Thorpe V. Corwin, 20 N. J. L. 311, 317, the court said;\n\"The statute of limitations makes the\nlapse of time a positive end le gal bar.\nwhen onee it has begun to run against a\nperson under no legal disability, it pur-\nsues its course, uninterrupted by any sub-\nseguent events; and when the period pro-\nscribed by the statute has clapsed, the\nbar is complete, and its force can neither\nba strongthened or impaired by anything\nthat has happened in the meantime.\nThe statute leaves nothing to presumption.\nTime alone settles the righta or the par-\nties by the giant forge of the statute.\"\nThat is lew today in New Jersey. Freeman V. Conover, 95 N.\nJ.\nL.\n89: contra Crawford V. Winterbottom, 88 N. J. L. 588.\nIn our systen of jurisprudence, equity, in the case of fraud,\nhas never barred relier to en injured perty who has been in ignorance\nof the fraud. Prevost V. Grets, 6 wheaton 481; Bedger V. Badger\n69 U.S. 87; Bailey V. Glover, 88 U. S. 342; Exploration company V.\nUnited States, 247 U.S. 435; Howard V. West Jersey Railroad company,\n103 M.J.F. 317.\nIn Bailey V. Glover, supra, the court said in giving its reasons\nror the equitable doetrine:\n\"They (statutes of limitations) were en-\nacted to provent frauds; to prevent parties\nfrom esserting rights after the lapse of\ntime hed destroyed or impaired the evidence\nwhich would show that such rights never ex-\nisted, or had been satisfied, transferred,"
}