![]() An action upon a contract, *145 obligation, or liability, express or implied (excepting judgments and sealed instruments). The periods prescribed in section seventy-four for the commencement of actions, other than for the recovery of real property, shall be as follows: Civil actions can only be commenced within the periods prescribed in this title, after the cause of action shall have accrued, except where, in special cases, a different limitation is prescribed by statute. The Civil Code of New York repeals the former laws on the subject of the limitation of actions and enacts as follows: The court below held against this claim, but it is repeated and renewed on this appeal. This action was commenced on the 6th day of May, 1864, and it was insisted that all that part of the claim which became due on or before May 6th, 1858, was barred by the statute of limitations of the State of New York. The point with which we are principally concerned at this time arises upon the statute of limitations. ![]() The record in the former suit was given in evidence in this suit, and is conclusive. It was settled by the adjudication of the point by the highest courts of New York in an action between the same parties and upon precisely the same facts. The question whether, upon the merits, the plaintiff is entitled to recover is no longer an open question. Justice HUNT, concurring in the judgment. No error can be assigned upon such a finding. He finds generally in favor of the plaintiff, namely, that the statute of limitations was not a bar to the action. They are not found specially by the referee he refuses to find them. *144 But the facts on which the plaintiff in error relies are not spread upon the record in such a manner that the court can take cognizance of them. These decisions upon the construction of the statute are binding upon us, whatever we may think of their soundness on general principles. And this, notwithstanding the defendant was the lessee of a railroad in New York, and had property within the State, and a managing agent residing and keeping an office of the company at Elmira, within the State. The courts of New York have decided (and two of the decisions were made upon the case of this very company), that a foreign corporation cannot avail itself of the statute of limitations of that State. If the facts appeared as stated by the counsel, it could not avail the plaintiff in error. The counsel for the plaintiff in error (the defendant below) insists "that it was proved and conceded that during all the time of the existence of the contract of 1851, the defendant had property within the State of New York, an office at Corning, New York, directors, officers, and agents, constantly within this State, and at all times amenable to the process of its courts and, in fact, in 1855, the plaintiff availed itself of this condition of things by bringing a suit against the defendant for a portion of the demand claimed under the contract now in controversy, recovered judgment and collected the same, and that in fact this suit was commenced by personal service of a summons upon the defendant's agent at Corning and that it is, therefore, apparent that the Tioga company has been, at all times, subject to a suit at law for any debt it owed to the Blossburg company or any other party," and he argues that the statute of limitations is therefore a defence. We pass, then, to the matter of the statute of limitations. It cannot be litigated again on the same contract. This point, then, is res judicata between the parties. The report of the case in 1st Keyes, 486, shows that it was the only question before the *143 Court of Appeals, to which court the case was carried. But we have looked at the record and proceedings therein, which were in evidence in this case, and are satisfied that it was decided. Some attempt has been made to show that in the suit brought in January, 1855, in the Supreme Court of New York by the Blossburg company against the Tioga company, on the contract now in question, the matter of the difference for which the present suit is brought was not a question decided. Justice BRADLEY, having stated the case, delivered the opinion of the court. ![]() Reynolds, for the plaintiff in error (after arguing the case on merits).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |