Images (3)
Document
| id |
id
75727324
|
|---|---|
| contentType |
contentType
document
|
| source |
source
import
|
Source image fields (6)
Extracted text
OCR Page 1 of 3William D. Edwards
Edwin F. Smith
Edwards, Smith & Dawson
Raymond. Dawson
No.1. Exchange Place
Andrew O.Wittrick
Charles M. James
Attorneys & Counsellors at Law
Gersey City, N.J.
(2035
Forrest S.m.
Montgomorys 2036
2037
Edwards & Smith
DEC 5 1932
December 2, 1932.
United States Radium Corporation,
535 Pearl Street,
Att: Mr. Lee
New York, N.Y.
Re: LaPorte vs. U.S. Radium Corporation
Gentlemen:
The above entitled action is now
pending in the Federal Court. The plaintiff's attorney
has written me, stating that he intends to move the
case when reached. I have written to Mr. Markley,
requesting that we have a conference in order that we
may apply to the court for a date for the trial of the
case so that we may be prepared to bring in our expert
witnesses.
In this case you will remember that
plaintiff alleges that the deceased worked for your
company from 1916 to 1918, leaving your company sometime
in 1918.
In the answer filed by us we pleaded
the Statute of Limitations both as to the husband's
action and as to the wife's action. Recently I forwarded
you copy of opinion of the Court of Errors & Appeals in
the case of Weinstein VS. Blanchard, wherein that court
held that the Statute of Limitations begins to run from
the invasion of the legal right of the plaintiff or in
negligence cases from the time of the commission of the
negligent act. In our case, therefore, under such
decisions the Statute has run.
The plaintiff in his reply to our answer
did not set up fraud in the concealment of a cause of
action as many of the other cases did. When this case
comes on for trial, however, the plaintiff may move to
amend his reply by setting up fraud, and although we may
deny the fraud and interpose the defense of laches, etc.,
the court may permit an amendment, giving us time to answer
the same and move the case over to the equity side of the
court, and try out the question of the fraud of your company.
of course we have no idea that the plaintiff can prove any
such fraud.
- -1- -
Relations
belongs_to
belongs_to