Am. Sur. Co. of New York v. John H. C. Gainfort, 219 F.2d 111 (2d Cir. 1955). · Go Syfert
Search
Am. Sur. Co. of New York v. John H. C. Gainfort, 219 F.2d 111 (2d Cir. 1955). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Maggie P. Speight v. Rose Lowe Miller (ca7, 1971-02-26)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Maggie P. Speight v. Rose Lowe Miller
7th Cir. · 1971 · confidence medium
In American Surety Company of New York v. Gainfort, 219 F.2d 111, 112 (2d Cir. 1955), Judge Clark referred to “the general principle that the borrowed statute of limitations is accepted with all its accouterments. * * * ” 5 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States ex rel. Sabella v. Newsday
E.D.N.Y · 1970 · confidence medium
American Surety Co. of New York v. Gainfort, 219 F.2d 111, 112 (2d Cir. 1955); see, e. g., Isenberg v. Ranier, 145 App.Div. 256 , 130 N.Y.S. 27 (1st Dep’t 1911); Anglo California Nat’l Bank v. Klein, 162 Misc. 898 , 296 N.Y.S. 191, 201 (Sup.Ct. 1936); Devine v. Rook, 314 S.W.2d 932, 935 (Mo.Ct. of Appeals 1958); Stanley v. Wickam, 112 Kan. 628 , 211 P. 1117, 1118 (Sup.Ct.1923); McKee v. Dodd, 152 Cal. 637 , 93 P. 854 (Sup.Ct. 1908); West v. Theis, 15 Idaho 167 , 96 P. 932, 935 (Sup.Ct.1908); McCann v. Randall, 147 Mass. 81 , 17 N.E. 75, 80 (Sup.Judic.Council, 1888); see also Nolan v. Trans…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lowell Wiper Supply Co. v. Helen Shop, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1964 · confidence medium
Nolan v. Transocean Air Lines, 276 F.2d 280, 283 (2d Cir. 1960), vacated on other grounds, 365 U.S. 293 , 81 S.Ct. 555 , 5 L.Ed.2d 571 (1961) (applying New York choice of law rules); American Surety Co. of N. Y. v. Gainfort, 219 F.2d 111, 112 (2d Cir. 1955); Sylvania Elec.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Laura Conner and Clarence H. Conner v. Oren W. Spencer
9th Cir. · 1962 · confidence medium
Appellee argues that Oregon's borrowing statute borrows only Idaho’s limitation period and not its tolling statute, but the majority rule is to the contrary, and we will assume that Oregon would adhere “to the general principle that the borrowed statute of limitations is accepted with all its accouterments” [American Surety Co. v. Gainfort, 219 F.2d 111, 112 (2d Cir. 1955)], and would hold that the Idaho limitation applicable to the present action was the two-year *487 period provided by Idaho Code § 5-219 (4) as extended by the tolling provisions of Idaho Code § 5-229 .
cited Cited "see" Nolan v. Transocean Air Lines
S.D.N.Y. · 1959 · signal: see · confidence high
See American Surety Company of New York v. Gainfort, 2 Cir., 1955, 219 F.2d 111, 112 ; Moore v. Roschen, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1950, 93 F.Supp. 993, 994 .
cited Cited "see" Banana Distributors, Inc. v. United Fruit Co.
S.D.N.Y. · 1957 · signal: see · confidence high
See American Surety Company of New York v. Gainfort, 2 Cir., 1955, 219 F.2d 111 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hollins v. Yellow Freight System, Inc.
N.D. Ill. · 1984 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Speight v. Miller, 437 F.2d 781 , 783 n. 4 (7th Cir.), cert, denied, 404 U.S. 827 , 92 S.Ct. 60 , 30 L.Ed.2d 55 (1971) (when a foreign limitations provision is borrowed, also borrow “all its accouterments,” quoting American Surety Com *1027 pany Of New York v. Gainfort, 219 F.2d 111, 112 (2nd Cir.1955)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
John H. C. GAINFORT, Defendant-Appellant
150, Docket 23268.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Feb 1, 1955.
219 F.2d 111
Walter Higgins, New York City, for plaintiff-appellee., Lyle Evans Mahan, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Clark, Frank, Hincks.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published
CLARK, Chief Judge.

This is a defendant’s appeal from a judgment rendered upon two California judgments of 1935, which normally would be enforceable in New York for twenty years. See N.Y. Civil Practice Act § 44. But New York’s borrowing statute, N.Y.C.P.A. § 13, incorporates the shorter five-year period of limitations of California, Cal.Code Civ.Proc. § 336, where the claims arose, and thus would bar them except for the effect of another California statute, Cal. Code Civ.Proc. § 351, tolling all periods of limitation during the defendant’s absence from that state. Here defendant concededly left California in September, 1936, and has not returned. We agree with Judge Conger, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 123 F.Supp. 743, that under these circumstances defendant is subject to suit in New York until New York’s own period of enforceability has expired. Defendant argues that this result should not be reached when both plaintiff, an assignee of the original judgments, and he, as he contends, have been residents of New York since 1940. No New York case suggests such an exception to the general principle that the borrowed statute of limitations is accepted with all its accouterments, and certainly no California case implies such an overriding of the tolling provisions. True, this court in 1925 adopted a construction of N.Y. C.P.A. § 13 of a more limited nature; but that construction was withdrawn upon rehearing as not in accord with the decisions of the New York Court of Appeals. Irving Nat. Bank v. Law, 2 Cir., 10 F.2d 721, superseding 9 F.2d 536. So the position taken below seems now to be settled law in New York. See Hanna v. Stedman, 230 N.Y. 326, 337, 130 N.E. 566; Isenberg v. Rainier, 70 Misc. 498, 127 N.Y.S. 411, 414, affirmed 145 App. Div. 256, 130 N.Y.S. 27; Anglo California Nat. Bank v. Klein, 162 Misc. 898, 296 N.Y.S. 191, 201, per Shientag, J.; McGrath v. Helena Rubinstein, Inc., D.C.[*113] S.D.N.Y., 29 F.Supp. 822, 824; 1943 Rep. N.Y.Law Revision Commission 134, 148-154; 1949 Rep. 781; 15 Calif.L.Rev. 343 (1927); 35 Col.L.Rev. 762 (1935).

Affirmed.