Case Name: George W. Rathbun 2d, Respondent, v. The Northern Central Railway Company, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1872-06-20
Citations: 50 N.Y. 656
Docket Number: 
Parties: George W. Rathbun 2d, Respondent, v. The Northern Central Railway Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 50
Pages: 656–657

Head Matter:
George W. Rathbun 2d, Respondent, v. The Northern Central Railway Company, Appellant.
A foreign railway corporation cannot claim the benefit of the statute of limitations of this State in an action of which the courts of this State have jurisdiction, although it has before the commencement of the action for the time specified in the statute continuously operated and carried on a railroad in this State, having a large amount of property for all that time within the State and having a managing agent resident therein.
(Submitted June 12, 1872;
decided June 20, 1872.)
This action was commenced in August, 1869, to recover damages for injuries received by plaintiff when a passenger on the railroad of defendant, a corporation chartered by the State of Pennsylvania, from a disaster thereon in June, 1863, caused by the alleged negligence of defendant’s agents and employes.
The answer alleged that for more than six years prior to the action the defendant was the lessee of a railroad in New York, running from the northern line of Pennsylvania to the city of Elmira, N. Y., and had property within this State and a managing agent of the demised railway and property residing at Elmira, who kept an office of the Northern Central Railway Company; therefore claiming that the action did not accrue within six years before suit brought.
To this answer the plaintiff interposed a demurrer, in substance that defendant being a foreign corporation the statute of limitations did not apply. Upon argument the demurrer was overruled at Special Term. On appeal to General Term, this order was reversed and judgment directed on the demurrer.
Afterward the cause was tried before the court without a jury, and judgment rendered and perfected for the plaintiff for $2,500 with costs, which on appeal was affirmed by the General Term of the second judicial department. Held, that defendant could not claim the benefit of the statute of limitations and that the demurrer to answer was properly sustained.
George M. Dvven for the appellant.
George W. Hatlibun for the respondent.

Opinion:
Folgeb, J.,
reads for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.