Skip to main content
· 5/22/1916

Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Renn

Citations

  • 241 U.S. 290
  • 36 S. Ct. 567
  • 60 L. Ed. 1006
  • 1916 U.S. LEXIS 1754

Syllabus

<p>Whether the state court, in permitting an amendment to the complaint in an action under the Employers’ Liability Act, disregarded the provision in § 6 limiting the time to commence actions under the Act, is a Federal question, although the allowance of the amendment otherwise might rest in the discretion of the court and be a matter of local procedure.</p> <p>An amendment which merely expands or amplifies what was alleged in support of the cause of action asserted in the' original complaint relates back to the commencement of the action and is not affected by the intervening lapse of time.</p> <p>An amendment which introduces a new or different cause of action is the equivalent of a new suit which would be barred by § 6 if made more than two years after the cause of action arose.</p> <p>Although the original complaint in this case may not have distinctly .shown that the cause of action arose under the Employers’ Liability Act still as it did not allege that the cause of action arose under the law of the State -where it occurred, and did allege that defendant was engaged in operating its railroad in that and other States, held that an amendment that plaintiff’s employment. and defendant’s engagement were both in interstate commerce at the time of the . injury did not amount to the statement of a new cause of action, but merely amplified or expanded that already stated and related back to the commencement of the suit.</p> <p>Both courts below having-concurred against defendant’s request for instruction that .there was no evidence of actionable negligence and there being no clear error this court will not disturb such conclusions.</p> <p>Where the charge as a whole was fair,-objections made at the time, but which did not specifically draw the attention of the trial court to inaccuracies in portions of the charge respecting the measure of damages, cannot, where not dealt with by the appellate court, be pressed in this court.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • stating ”[i]f the amendment merely expanded or amplified what was alleged in support of the cause of action already asserted, it related back to the commencement of the action and was not affected by the intervening lapse of time.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Van Devanter

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.