TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Park v. New York, L. E. & W. R. R.

PARK v. NEW YORK, L. E. & W. R. R. In re ZWACK

Park v. N.Y., L. E. & W. R. R., 140 F. 799 (1905)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Historical Federal Courts
Decided
October 2, 1905
Judges
Lacombe
Citations
140 F. 7991905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4845
Syllabus
'Railroads — Operation by Receivers — Claim fob Personal Injury. A claim against the receivers of a railroad company for a personal injury received during their operation of the property permitted to be filed and heard, notwithstanding the expiration of the time fixed by notice for filing claims, on the ground of the infancy of the claimant.
Summary
On Petition of John Zwack.

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

Opinion of the Court — Lacombe

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

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The laches in this case are gross and unexplained. Nevertheless this court, as a court of equity, should be scrupulously considerate of the rights of an infant, however negligent his guardian and relatives and the lawyers they employed may have been in caring for his interests. The judgment obtained against the old company, in an action to which it was sole defendant, for injuries sustained while the railroad was being operated by receivers, is, of course, valueless as an adjudication against the receivers, and is not one of the claims which the purchaser at foreclosure contracted to pay. The court is loath to hold that the six months’ notice to present claims against receivers would bar an infant when the statute of limitations would not, and will therefore send the petitioner’s claim to the master to take testimony and report whether the injuries to petitioner were •due to the negligent operation of the road while in the hands of the receivers, and received under circumstances which would make them liable, and also what amount in money would fairly compensate for such injuries.

How later courts describe this case

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

1922: 11927: 119222026peak 1922 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. Spiller274 U.S. 304 (1927)
  2. North American Co. v. St. Louis &. S. F. R.288 F. 612 (E.D. Mo. 1922)

Most recent

  1. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. Spiller274 U.S. 304 (1927)
  2. North American Co. v. St. Louis &. S. F. R.288 F. 612 (E.D. Mo. 1922)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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