TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lapsley v. Public Service Corp.

CATHERINE LAPSLEY, ADMINISTRATRIX v. PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY

Lapsley v. Pub. Serv. Corp., 68 A. 1113 (N.J. 1908)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 2, 1908
Judges
Gummere
Citations
68 A. 111375 N.J.L. 26646 Vroom 2661908 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 147
Headnotes
1. The provision in the “Death act” that every action brought under its authority shall be commenced within twelve calendar months after the death occurs operates as a limitation of the. liability of the wrong-doer as well as of the remedy. 2. When a statute gives a remedy under particular circumstances, the party seeking- such remedy must, in his pleading, allege all the facts necessary to bring him within the statute.
Summary
On demurrer to declaration.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Gummere

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The opinion of the court was delivered by Gummere, Chief Justice.

This action is brought by the plaintiff to recover the pecuniary loss sustained by the widow and next of kin of her decedent, Janies Lapsley, by his death, which is averred in the declaration to have been caused by the wrongful act and neglect of the defendant company.

The sole ground of demurrer relied upon by the defendant is that the declaration fails to aver that the present action was commenced within twelve calendar months after 1he death of the plaintiff’s decedent, as required by the second section of the act of March 3d, 1848, which provides for the recovery of damages in cases where the death of a person is caused by wrongful act, neglect or default. Gen. Stat., v. 1188. The statute referred to, after setting forth what shall create liability, and who shall bring the action, contains a proviso which declares that every action brought under its authority shall be commenced within twelve calendar months after the death occurs. In the ease of County, Administratrix, v. Pacific, &c., Co., 38 Vroom 48 , Mr. Justice Garrison, discussing this proviso, says: “This special limitation is so closely related to the statutory remedy given as to be a part of it. It is created solely with the object of qualifying the right of action. The remedy is given subject to the limitation.” To the same effect is the following declaration of Chief Justice Waite, in the case of The Steamer Harrisburg, 119 U. S. 199 : “The time within which the suit must be brought operates as a limitation of the liability itself as created, and not of the remedy alone. It is a condition attached to the right to sue at all.” This is the generally accepted view of the effect of the limitation, as will appear by a reference to Tiff. Death Wr. Act, § 121, and cases cited.

Considering the proviso as a limitation of liability, it follows that the declaration, in order to disclose a cause of *268 action, must set out such facts as will negative the existence of such limitation. When a statute gives a remedy under particular circumstances, the party seeking such remedy should, in his pleading, allege all the facts necessary to bring him within the statute. Drowne v. Stimpson, 2 Mass. 441 . In order to entitle her to a recovery the plaintiff must show at the trial, not only that the death of the person, on’account of which she sues, was caused by the wrongful act, neglect or default of the defendant, but also that it occurred within twelve calendar months of the bringing of her action, and it is a cardinal rule of pleading that where any fact is necessary to be proved on the trial in order to sustain the plaintiff’s right of recovery the declaration must contain an averment of such fact in order to let in such proof. United States Bank v. Smith, 11 Wheat. 171 .

The defendant is entitled to judgment on the demurrer.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 15 cases

View all citing references →
1910: 21912: 11916: 11929: 11935: 11936: 21946: 11947: 11950: 11952: 11957: 11961: 11978: 119102026peak 1910 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Matheny v. Porter158 F.2d 478 (10th Cir. 1946)
  2. Pack v. Beech Aircraft Corporation132 A.2d 54 (Del. 1957)
  3. Robinson v. Waterman S. S. Co.7 F.R.D. 51 (D.N.J. 1947)
  4. United States v. Steagall88 F. Supp. 98 (N.D. Tex. 1950)
  5. Brookshire v. Burkhart1929 OK 428, 283 P. 571
  6. American R. Co. of Porto Rico v. Coronas230 F. 545 (1st Cir. 1916)

Most recent

  1. Holzsager v. Warburton452 F. Supp. 1267 (D.N.J. 1978)
  2. Marshall v. Geo. M. Brewster & Son, Inc.172 A.2d 458 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1961)
  3. Pack v. Beech Aircraft Corporation132 A.2d 54 (Del. 1957)
  4. Zabady v. Frame91 A.2d 643 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1952)
  5. United States v. Steagall88 F. Supp. 98 (N.D. Tex. 1950)
  6. Robinson v. Waterman S. S. Co.7 F.R.D. 51 (D.N.J. 1947)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
The Harrisburg, 119 U.S. 199 (1886) 643
Bank of United States v. Smith, 24 U.S. (11 Wheat.) 171 (1826) 91
Drowne v. Stimpson, 2 Mass. 441 (1807) 22
Margaret Cnty. v. Pac. Coast Borax Co., 50 A. 906 (N.J. 1902) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list