Ask the Scholar
Page 20 of 30
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
44 N.J.Law 485, 487; Holoway V. Appelget,
55 N.J.Eq. 383, 505; Clark V. Augustine, 62
N.J.Mq. 689, 695; Freeman V. Conover, 95
N.J.Law 89, 93. See also, Magner V. Mutual
Life Association, 44 N.T. supp. 868; affirm-
ed, 162 N.Y. 657; Thompson V. The Phoenix
Insurance CO., 136 U.S. 287, 300.
Howard V. West Jersey, etc., R.R.CO., 108
521 (supra)
That statement was recently approved by the Court of Errors
and Appeals in Partrick V. Groves, 115 N.J.E. 208. It suggesta e
much wider scope to the doctrine of *fraudulent concealment* then
is generally accepted elsewhere. See Dewson, Fraudulent Concealment
and the Statute of Limitutions. 31 Mich. L.R. 591; Note, Fraudulent
Concealment of e Right of Action end the Statute of Limitations,
43 Harv. L.R. 471; Tood V. Carpenter, 101 U.S. 135.
In Lincoln V. Judd, 49 N.J.E. 387, the complsinant shipped sheep
to the defendants who sold them and romitted the proceeds of the
sales, less their commissions and amounts purported to have been ex-
pended for freightage. The freightage deducted was grossly in excess
of the actual charges but the complainants accepted the moneys as
correct, relying on the defendant's honesty and did not discover the
fraud presumebly for over six years. the defendants demurred to the
bill for an accounting on the grounds that the complainant had an ade-
quate remedy at lew and that more than six years had elapsed ance the
ceuse accrued. But the court overruled the demurrer, holding that
"in cases of fraud the time limited within which the action must be
brought will not commence to run until the discovery of the fraud, or
until the complainent was in a situation whore, by the exercise of
reasonable diligence, he would have discovered the fraud."
Another case, Hollowey V. Appelget, 56 N.J.E. 583, held that
the defense of the statute in an action at law would be enjoined in
equity where a defendant sold certain municipal bonds efter making
an agreement with en attorney to pay hin a percentage for collect-
ing the bonds and allowed the statute to run without informing the
attorney of the faot. See comment, la Harv. L.R. 220.
The court held in Clark V. Augustine, 62 N.J.F. 689, that non-
Page data
- Page
- 20
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- photo
- Media ID
- 91848f3e9272c70e
- 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": 20,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "photo",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0003274_Page_20.jpg",
"mediaId": "91848f3e9272c70e",
"ocrText": "44 N.J.Law 485, 487; Holoway V. Appelget,\n55 N.J.Eq. 383, 505; Clark V. Augustine, 62\nN.J.Mq. 689, 695; Freeman V. Conover, 95\nN.J.Law 89, 93. See also, Magner V. Mutual\nLife Association, 44 N.T. supp. 868; affirm-\ned, 162 N.Y. 657; Thompson V. The Phoenix\nInsurance CO., 136 U.S. 287, 300.\nHoward V. West Jersey, etc., R.R.CO., 108\n521 (supra)\nThat statement was recently approved by the Court of Errors\nand Appeals in Partrick V. Groves, 115 N.J.E. 208. It suggesta e\nmuch wider scope to the doctrine of *fraudulent concealment* then\nis generally accepted elsewhere. See Dewson, Fraudulent Concealment\nand the Statute of Limitutions. 31 Mich. L.R. 591; Note, Fraudulent\nConcealment of e Right of Action end the Statute of Limitations,\n43 Harv. L.R. 471; Tood V. Carpenter, 101 U.S. 135.\nIn Lincoln V. Judd, 49 N.J.E. 387, the complsinant shipped sheep\nto the defendants who sold them and romitted the proceeds of the\nsales, less their commissions and amounts purported to have been ex-\npended for freightage. The freightage deducted was grossly in excess\nof the actual charges but the complainants accepted the moneys as\ncorrect, relying on the defendant's honesty and did not discover the\nfraud presumebly for over six years. the defendants demurred to the\nbill for an accounting on the grounds that the complainant had an ade-\nquate remedy at lew and that more than six years had elapsed ance the\nceuse accrued. But the court overruled the demurrer, holding that\n\"in cases of fraud the time limited within which the action must be\nbrought will not commence to run until the discovery of the fraud, or\nuntil the complainent was in a situation whore, by the exercise of\nreasonable diligence, he would have discovered the fraud.\"\nAnother case, Hollowey V. Appelget, 56 N.J.E. 583, held that\nthe defense of the statute in an action at law would be enjoined in\nequity where a defendant sold certain municipal bonds efter making\nan agreement with en attorney to pay hin a percentage for collect-\ning the bonds and allowed the statute to run without informing the\nattorney of the faot. See comment, la Harv. L.R. 220.\nThe court held in Clark V. Augustine, 62 N.J.F. 689, that non-"
}