William Tudor, Appellant, v. William M. Ebner, Respondent

William Tudor, Appellant, v. William M. Ebner, Respondent. (Argued October 4, 1905; decided October 24, 1905.) Tudor v. Ebner, 104 App. Div. 562, affirmed. Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July 8, 1905, which affirmed an interlocutory judgment of Special Term overruling a demurrer to the answer. The following question was certified : “ Is an action, wherein the plaintiff is, and at the time of the accrual of the cause of action was, a resident of the State of Massachusetts, and the defendant is, and at the time of the accrual of the cause of action was, a resident of the District of Alaska, to recover damages incurred by plaintiff by reason of false and fraudulent representations made to him by the defendant, whereby he was induced to purchase personal property, which was of a value less than would have been the case had the representations been true, and also less than the purchase price, an action for any injury to the person or rights of another not arising in contract and not herein especially enumerated,’ within the meaning of those words as they are used in an Act of the Congress of the United States, entitled, ‘An Act Making Further Provision for a 'Civil Government for Alaska, and for other puiqioses,’ which was duly approved and became a law on the 6th day of June, 1900, in Title II, Chapter Two thereof, Sections 3, 4 and 8 thereof, which read as follows: “ ‘ Sec. 3. Civil actions shall only be commenced within the periods prescribed in this title after the cause"of action shall have accrued. * * * “ ‘ Sec. 4. The periods prescribed in Section Three of this Act for the commencement of actions shall be as follows : * .* * “ ‘ Sec. 8. Within two years “ ‘ First. An action for libel, slander, assault, battery, seduction, false imprisonment, or for any injury to the person or rights of another not arising on contract and not herein especially enumerated. “ ‘ Second. An action upon a statute for a forfeiture or penalty to the United States?’” H. B. Closson and Herbert Frazier for appellant. Henry W. Clark, Albert B. Boardman and Frank H. Platt for respondent. [MAJORITY] Order affirmed, with costs; question certified answered in the affirmative; no opinion. Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Bartlett, Haight, Vann and Werner, JJ. Absent: O’Brien, J.