Manuel v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co.
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- Donald L. Atkins v. Schmutz Manufacturing Company, Incorporated (4th Cir. 1968)
- McKinney v. Schuster (New York Supreme Court 1952)
- Barley v. Duncan (Va. 1941)
- Hudson Motor Car Co. v. Hertz (6th Cir. 1941)
- Dodson v. Potomac Mack Sales & Service, Inc. (Va. 1991)
- Norwood, Adm'r v. Buffey (Va. 1955)
- In re Chen (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia 2006)
- Beverage v. Harvey (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1978)
- Continental Casualty Co. v. The Benny Skou (4th Cir. 1952)
- Jones v. Morris Plan Bank (Va. 1938)
- Steffey v. King (Va. 1919)
- Hutchings v. Royal Bakery (Or. 1913)
- Dowell v. Cox (Va. 1908)
- Savings Bank v. Powhatan Clay Manufacturing Co. (Va. 1904)
- Curcurato v. Reggio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1953)
- Capps v. . R. R. (N.C. 1922)
- Capps v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad (N.C. 1922)
- Duty v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. (W. Va. 1911)
- Tompkins v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance (W. Va. 1903)
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
The plaintiff’s decedent is alleged to have lost his life "by the negligence of the defendant on the 21th day of July, 1898. His administrator qualified on the 16th day of January, 1899, and instituted an action for damages for the killing on the 19th day of the same month. There was a mistrial at the February term of the court. The case was continued at the May term. At the October term of the court, a juror was withdrawn, and upon motion of the plaintiff he was non-suited because of the absence of a material witness, and judgment entered for costs. The plaintiff afterwards instituted another action for the same injury. The declaration on its face showed
Its judgment is plainly right. This case does not come within the provisions of section 2934 of the Code as amended by act, approved February 8, 1898 (Acts 1897-’8, p. 252), nor section 2919 as amended by act, approved February 12, 1896 (Acts 1895-’6, p. 331).
Where an action is brought within ¿he statutory period, and after the expiration of that period, the plaintiff is non-suited upon his own motion, the statute of limitations is a bar to another action for the same cause. Angel on Lim., sec. 328; Barino v. McGhee, 3 S. C. 452; Braxton v. Woods, 4 Gratt. 25-6.
Writ of error denied.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.