Hanna v. Jeffersonville Railroad
Cases that cite this one
33 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Sharrow v. . Inland Lines, Ltd. (N.Y. 1915)
- Silva v. City and County of Honolulu (Haw. 2007)
- Bocek v. Inter-Insurance Exchange of Chicago Motor Club (Ind. Ct. App. 1977)
- Haney v. Old Equity Insurance (Ind. Ct. App. 1973)
- Myers v. Sell (Ind. 1948)
- Wilson v. Missouri Pac. R. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas 1945)
- Cashman v. Hedberg (Minn. 1943)
- Shipman, Exr. v. Shipman, Gdn. (Ind. Ct. App. 1934)
- Brookshire v. Burkhart (Okla. 1929)
- Norris v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad (Ind. Ct. App. 1924)
- Seaboard Air-Line Railway v. Brooks (Ga. 1921)
- Demartino v. Siemon (Conn. 1916)
- Anthony v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. (Ark. 1913)
- Morrison v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. (D.C. Cir. 1913)
- Hildebrand v. Kinney (Ind. 1909)
- Clark v. Schindler (Ind. Ct. App. 1909)
- McRae v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad (Mass. 1908)
- Indianapolis Street Railway Co. v. Fearnaught (Ind. Ct. App. 1907)
- Poff v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. (N.H. 1903)
- Rodman v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. (Kan. 1902)
- Elliott v. Brazil Block Coal Co. (Ind. Ct. App. 1900)
- Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Collins (Ohio Circuit Courts 1900)
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Hosea (Ind. 1899)
- Pence v. Young (Ind. Ct. App. 1899)
- Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Fulton (Ohio 1899)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
This was- a suit by the appellant against the appellee. The only- question is, whether the court below erred in sustaining a demurrer to the complaint.
The suit was by an- administrator, to recover, under the statute (2 G-. & H. 330, sec. 784), for the injuries resulting to the intestate, in 1864, whereby his life was lost. He was a resident of Maryland, and a passenger on the defendant’s railroad, and injured by the. carelessness of its servants. He died in April, 1864; administration of his estate was granted in Maryland, in August, 1867; and the suit was hot commenced until' Eebruary, 1868.
It will be seen that the statute already referred to, which gives the right of action, provides, that “ the action must be commenced within two years.” To this limitation upon the right to bring the suit there are no exceptions made by the statute, and' It is not competent for the courts to make any. The law must be administered as the legislature has enacted it.
It is important, then; to-inquire'when the two - years - began to run. The language of*the statute does not furnish an express answer-to-this inquiry. But it does not appear possible to suppose that the legislature meant that it should be from the appointment of the administrator. The damages accrue to the widow and children or next of kin. They can procure administration as and when they wish. They
It only remáins to ascertain whether the point can í>e ¡raised in this case by demurrer to the complaint. Ordinarily, statutes of limitations must be pleaded, though the facts appear by the averments of the complaint. The reason for this is, that .usually there are exceptions to statutes of limitations, and the plaintiff should, therefore, have the •opportunity of replying to the plea, so that he may show that the case is within any of the exceptions. To com¡pel him to make these .averments in the complaint, would
Affirmed, with costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.