Ask the Scholar
Page 23 of 30
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
It 1s accepted in New Jezsay that the plaintiff must show
roasmable diligance in bringing his muit artor the estoppel has
expired. See cases infra. And it makes no difforence ir the con-
cealment (or fraud) springa from the came not es the of action
or 1s found in subsequent nota (or failuro to act) a
Thus, it was in Holloway Va Appelget, (supra, 55 N.° J. Ess
at P. 585):
whe question is whether, in equity, Mr. Holloway
in entitled to invoke the statuto of limita tions in
bar of Appelgot's nation at lav. In nost of the cases
the ber has been set up in suite in equity instituted
fox the purgoses of obtaining rollor in inntances of
fraud. Thore, howover, is no rosson why a court of
equity should not. by the uso of 1ta injunotive power,
disern a defendant from using the atatute trandulently
in an notion et law. In the ense of Precholdors of
Somerset V. Veghte, 15 Vr. 509, where 11 was held that
a fraudulent aonoealment of a cauae of notion was no
answer to the statute in 50 action at law, it was ade
mitted that relier could be successfully cought in
aquity.
"It also appeara that the equitable roller here
invoked has boen granted mostly in cases whero the ast
out of which the of action arose was a Sraudulent
in Ita naturo suoh as enbezalements or
thefte out by the of or
vouchers. But it seems olesy that a court of equity will
interfero, al though the antase of netion may not have arison
out of a technionlly fraudulent act, if the defendant has
employed any means to misload the plaintiff, or to hide from
him the feot that a causo of setion has arison."
But of course, there must be some sort of conduot or asta which
are traudulent or unconscionable. Mere negligence will not constitute
equitable t raud even ir the plaintire has no knowledgo of the asuas
of action.
There are apparently no Now Jersey cases holding to that offect
but the rule has no exceptions in eny jurisdiction except in the 60m
onlled insävertent trespass cases auch as Lewey V. Priok Colte Com-
pany,
As horetofore indicated there is no orthodox dootrine of "froud-
ulent in New Jersey. That is due doubtless to the
flourishing Court of Chaneary, which lo ma intained apert from and
independently of the law At any rate, the plaintier will
not be rolieved or tho bar or the statute unless the defendant by
Page data
- Page
- 23
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- photo
- Media ID
- 41f45f990dae006e
- 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": 23,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "photo",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0003274_Page_23.jpg",
"mediaId": "41f45f990dae006e",
"ocrText": "It 1s accepted in New Jezsay that the plaintiff must show\nroasmable diligance in bringing his muit artor the estoppel has\nexpired. See cases infra. And it makes no difforence ir the con-\ncealment (or fraud) springa from the came not es the of action\nor 1s found in subsequent nota (or failuro to act) a\nThus, it was in Holloway Va Appelget, (supra, 55 N.° J. Ess\nat P. 585):\nwhe question is whether, in equity, Mr. Holloway\nin entitled to invoke the statuto of limita tions in\nbar of Appelgot's nation at lav. In nost of the cases\nthe ber has been set up in suite in equity instituted\nfox the purgoses of obtaining rollor in inntances of\nfraud. Thore, howover, is no rosson why a court of\nequity should not. by the uso of 1ta injunotive power,\ndisern a defendant from using the atatute trandulently\nin an notion et law. In the ense of Precholdors of\nSomerset V. Veghte, 15 Vr. 509, where 11 was held that\na fraudulent aonoealment of a cauae of notion was no\nanswer to the statute in 50 action at law, it was ade\nmitted that relier could be successfully cought in\naquity.\n\"It also appeara that the equitable roller here\ninvoked has boen granted mostly in cases whero the ast\nout of which the of action arose was a Sraudulent\nin Ita naturo suoh as enbezalements or\nthefte out by the of or\nvouchers. But it seems olesy that a court of equity will\ninterfero, al though the antase of netion may not have arison\nout of a technionlly fraudulent act, if the defendant has\nemployed any means to misload the plaintiff, or to hide from\nhim the feot that a causo of setion has arison.\"\nBut of course, there must be some sort of conduot or asta which\nare traudulent or unconscionable. Mere negligence will not constitute\nequitable t raud even ir the plaintire has no knowledgo of the asuas\nof action.\nThere are apparently no Now Jersey cases holding to that offect\nbut the rule has no exceptions in eny jurisdiction except in the 60m\nonlled insävertent trespass cases auch as Lewey V. Priok Colte Com-\npany,\nAs horetofore indicated there is no orthodox dootrine of \"froud-\nulent in New Jersey. That is due doubtless to the\nflourishing Court of Chaneary, which lo ma intained apert from and\nindependently of the law At any rate, the plaintier will\nnot be rolieved or tho bar or the statute unless the defendant by"
}