De Vito v. New York Central System
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Dissent
Eager, J. (dissenting).
From early times it has been the law of this State, based in sound policy, that, except as provided by statute in cases originally grounded in fraud, it was no answer to a plea of the Statute of Limitations that a 1 ‘ cause of action was fraudulently concealed by the defendant until after the statute had attached, and that the suit was brought within the time limited by the statute after the discovery of the right to sue.” (Andreac v. Redfield, 98 U. S. 225, 237, applying New York law, and citing Allen v. Mille, 17 Wend. 204 and Leonard v. Pitney, 5 Wend. 30.) “ It is a…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transportation Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1936
- Brick v. Cohn-Hall-Marx Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1937
- Carr v. . ThompsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Tulloch v. HaseloAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1926
- Leonard v. PitneyNew York Supreme Court · 1830
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.