John Zuck v. Interstate Publishing Corp., John Zuck v. Marjorie Bair, Edward Purcell, Martin Goodman and Jean Goodman

contempt ply Board’s order with the ZUCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, John against proceedings them. are v. urging procedural Except by the good nicety, CORP., advanced reason is INTERSTATE no PUBLISHING Defendant-Appellee. why not act now should Board we than later. ZUCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, John hearing, respond- At time of the v. attempted present the evidence ents Marjorie BAIR, Purcell, Edward Martin Rulings concerning the embezzlement. Goodman, Goodman and Jean indicating examiner, his view Defendants-Appellees. of the trial admissible, the evidence was not 196, Docket 27661. respondent’s counsel from dissuaded then United Appeals States Court of exceptions pursuing No were the matter. Second Circuit. rulings in this taken examiner’s Argued Jan. regard before the Board. May 10, Decided 10(e) Under Section 160(e), Act, we have U.S.C.A. § power a case to the Board remand taking proofs. power further Our

"the discretionary, respect R. N. L. in this Co., B. 166 F.2d v. National Garment (C.A.8, U.S. 92 L.Ed. S.Ct. though objec we exercise even prop were the Board’s order Clay erly made. N. L. R. B. v. Cambria 1954). (C.A.6, Co., F.2d Prod. “extraordinary we Under circumstances” may remand a case to the Board even though exceptions taken no Report. L. Intermediate N. R. B. Pugh Barr, Inc., F.2d 220- 1952); (C.A.4, R. N. B. Rozelle L. Corp., (C.A.1, 205 F.2d Shoe also, N. B. R. L. Coca-Cola

Bottling Co., 1955) (C.A.6, 219 F.2d 441 U.S. affirmed 350 76 S.Ct. Ridge 285; Co., N. L. R. L.Ed. B. Tool (C.A.6, 1945). Cf., 151 F.2d Laughlin N. L. R. B. v. Jones & Steel 416, 428, L. 67 S.Ct. Ed. 1575. pre Under circumstances good here, purpose no sented would be delaying .served a remand for taking Accordingly, of further evidence. ease, employee we remand the Kil as to bourne, taking the Board proofs concerning discharge, further making findings. and the relevant respects, all other order the Board is decreed enforced.

WATERMAN, Judge. Circuit appeals primary issue in these of action for

the time at which a cause accrues, for of the statute limitations, York “sin- under the New gle publication rule”. Zuck, Appellant, these- John against consolidated Interstate- actions maga Publishing Corp., publisher World”, individ zine “Movie and several ******alleging Interstate,1 uals connected with published that he was libeled an article an dated in issue of “Movie World” com March The actions were in the District menced United States for the Court Southern District 22, 1961; jurisdiction York on December diversity upon a of citizens was based hip.2 trial, defendants moved Before summary judgment, Rule Fed.R.Civ. setting up P., of the statute the defense support their mo- of limitations. affidavits, they filed contested tions by asserting appellant, the March printed' World” was issue of “Movie Printing Company at Dunel- Art Color Jersey, copies len, that all of the- to the- Art Color issue were delivered magazine- distributor of that exclusive Company) car- News designated by it, on or before De- riers Thereafter, defendants- cember magazines asserted, to- were delivered throughout news dealers United' on newsstands and were States beginning December- sale Baker, Chazen, Hoboken, Garber N. 22, 1960. Baker, Chazen, (Nathan Bernard Ho- J. boken, basis of these facts district On the counsel), J., plaintiff- N. granted judge motion for defendants’ appellant. holding summary judgment, plain- Schultz, City Henry Edward New York barred under of action was tiff’s cause Schultz, City, (Michael E. New York Jersey’s and New one- New York’s both year defendants-appellees. counsel), for of limitations. N.Y.Civil statutes MEDINA, 51-a; WATERMAN Before and Practice Act N.J.S.A. 2A:14-3. Judges. single- MOORE, Circuit ruled that under the He appeared 1. The individual defendants Action served and has not was not Marjorie Bair, 61-4573 are editor action. World”; “Movie Martin and Jean Good principal Jersey. man, stockholders, officers of New In- 2. Plaintiff citizen corporation Publishing and directors of Interstate Cor a New York terstate poration Purcell, and Edward writer are the individual defendants all citizens- allegedly libelous article. Purcell of New York. ruled, turn York courts P. Put- before publication rule, v. G. aggrieved century, person 45 this Sons, 81 N.E.2d nam’s appearing a news plaintiff’s sole magazine paper in which was allowed but one suit copies of the all when arose by publications for all made distribu- to recover to the wholesale were delivered up the defendant to time the action the placed carriers common tor or Galligan Print in- was commenced. Sun .shipment dealers—in to news ing Publishing 355, Ass’n, 54 year prior the 25 Misc. to than one stance more n commencementof Enos, (1898); Enos 135 N.Y.S. 471 proceedings. these plain 609, (1892). The N.Y. N.E. claiming cause his appeals, that if Zuck permitted make tiff in a to such suit was n ofaction is controlled York sub single allegation de a count 22, law, it accrued on December stantive famatory printed and matter had been allegedly libel when bulk Fried, extensively See, circulated. e. magazines on sale ous Halstead, Mendelson & v.Co. Edmund however, maintains, public.3 He Ltd., App.Div. N.Y.S. Jersey and in New of action arose cause (1922); Johnston Macfadden News Jer under New it is not time barred papers Corp., App.Div. 263 N.Y.S. appellant and sey law.4 holdwith We for further cause and remand the reverse proceedings below. early pleading These rules of Traditionally, the un libel consists in compulsory joinder, pre however, did not defamatory privileged of communication republication further of vent actions for person de than the a other material to defamatory com matter after con communication famed. such Each Galligan original mencement of the suit. publica each stitutes a Printing Ass’n, supra. v. Sun & Publ. gives separate of cause rise ato tion Despite New York’s of lim short statute Harmer, Brunswick v. action. of Duke actions, therefore, itations publisher Q.B. 185, Eng.Rep. (1849); widely-distributed of a news Torts, Restatement, comment b § book, periodical, liable or remained (1938); Odgers, Libel and Slander long any copies to so as of of suit (6th These traditional ed. fending in circulation. matter remained publi principles, however, mass antedate possibility To eliminate this of com distribution cation and nationwide actions, pos mencement of further which proc printed modem information our sibility thought policy subvert contemporary applied esses. magazine When limitations, the of New York’s statute of circulation, exam of wide Syracuse court, in Wolfson v. they ple, possibility that a create Newspapers, App.Div. single defamatory statement will (1938), N.Y.S.2d 640 action, millions causes rise to 18 N.E.2d 676 created offending person reads the for each who rule. Under this rule periodical. of a libel of a edition gives pleading Recognizing periodical difficulties of ous rise action, opportunities for harassment after the accrual and the one cause of but may application subsequent literal which a of which distributions defendants damages create, principles plaintiff’s compensable the New these would increase running computing side New commenced In the time of if under New York state either it is of limitations in the courts of that statute day law, excluded. under the statute of limitations of barred arose, Law it or if it would be Tismer the state where § Gen.Construction it N.Y. the New York statute had New York Edison barred first, proceed arisen in New York. We N.E. 729 therefore, the issue under determine New York Civil Prac- New York law. Under Act, arising out- tice product but do causes not create is released th& finished publisher action running statute of limitations or start the sale in accord with practice.” trade accrual of this 298 N.Y. at anew. upon supplied). (emphasis N.E.2d cause of said to occur at 49 action is “publication” matter. Though language is not without “publica- son, however, Wolf term ambiguity, suggests that the date any unprivi- longer tion” referred no legal publication “re- is to be the official leged communication date, lease” or “on sale” in this which person, em- matter to but was a third case was December rather than wholly ployed different, and not point the proc- earlier in the distribution specified manner: ess which the court selected. The below separate publica- of “The number “Gregoire appears test” so have been . and the of the libels interpreted by Judge Hincks when he sat arising in causes of action plaintiff’s therefrom on the United States District for Court gauged by not favor [are] the District of Connecticut. Fouts single copies the number of of the Publ., Inc., Fawcett (D. ap- edition in the articles which Conn.1953); Publ., Hazlitt v. Fawcett peared circu- and defendant which (D.Conn.1953). ‘ * * * lated sale or otherwise. years, however, In recent the lower publication the a defama- [I]n of given courts of New York have conflict- tory newspaper publicly article in a ing interpretations Gregoire. of In Na- publica- circulated is but one there Hospital tional Cancer of America v. tion, place the and that at the where ” Confidential, Inc., 151 N.Y.S.2d 444- newspaper published.’ 4 N.Y.S. (Sup.Ct.1956), Justice Nathan ruled 2d at 642. that For of the published “A libel is deemed to be rule, dispute precisely some remains as to manuscript soon passed as as the has stage preparation what in and distri- of possession, out defendant’s and it legal periodical bution of of a the moment is settled law a of cause action leading publication occurs. The day for of its accrues ease Putnam’s G. P. * * * publication. first Sons, 81 N.E.2d 45 and “Possession control defend- Appeals There of the Court extended the Confidential, Inc. ant terminated rule to an for bar action libelous matter printer ship- its released and when book, copies contained in a several of magazines by ped finished mass dis- years

which more were sold than five tribution to the wholesale newsdeal- printing distribution, after the initial and ers.” of the The court edition. stated: Farley Ass’n, In v. James Stella J. “Although may it not be said (1953), Misc. N.Y.S.2d publication and of dissemination App.Div. 873, 135 N.Y.S.2d 234 degree books has reached that by contrast, Levy Justice ruled production widespread mass and dis- action for libel was not time- that an prevalent tribution in in- now fields year within barred when commenced one by newspapers periodicals, vaded receipt by public of the the offend it is our view that the ing newspaper: political book, involving styling, a libelous “ - * * * binding printing, hold that I the date of other those ‘publication’ meaning publisher within acts which a enable on a given ‘one rule’ is date release copies single print- thousands its contents were dictated of a date to a ing impression, stenographer preparation in or for the one affords the legal paper, printing libeled nor a for basis date transcribing notes, cause of her of action which nor arises when ' print- process legal publica- tribution at which was article the date when the consequence. tion occurs a matter of no ed, it was read nor the date when inserting fixing for engaged Alternative dates persons in n copies time of for paper pre-addressed accrual cause of action normally days mailing libel will fall within a few envelopes to those time published, nor weeks of each other. As the whom suggested interval him- alterna- one who between the date of however, pur- increases, tive accrual dates material self receives the becomes clear the later the time poses If of mail distribution. operation accrual claiming the fairer be libelled single publication is to rule. of a be limited to York, juris- as most other publica- upon a date based dictions, statute limitations subsequent issuance is not tion —and unusually libel actions is fixTo short.5 of action rise to new cause legal publication th'e as date of even my view be —that date should time that the matter is n datewhen received the may trap public on sale a to the create regardless by general public, of the unwary magazines plaintiffs; are may persons that the fact various post-dated often months several weeks or incident to read the libel as an have they after the actual date are preparation printing of the and public.6 sale to To fix accrual desired to and its distribution prior receipt date to of the 122 at 330. readers.” N.Y.S.2d normally material, however, libelous Ap of York Court As begin running to the statute conflicting yet peals has not resolved before the that the of- time limitations Gregoire Interpretations test of of its fending publication has been to n accrual, apply required are to we attention, prior and, indeed, the victim’s interpretation which us facts before any rep- to the occurrence of harm to his light in would make we believe court result, thus, utation. The is an effective n single underlying policies the state shortening already of an short limitation publication v. American rule. West period. Moreover, pub- under the 223, 236-237, Co., 61 Tel. & Tel. U.S. 311 rule, publication lication victims mass (1940); Bern L.Ed. 139 S.Ct. given libel are but one action in which Polygraphic 350 U.S. hardt v. produced by for all harm a recover 204-205, 100 L.Ed. 199 S.Ct. magazine, newspaper, edition of Merritt-Chapman (1955); Cor Scott or book. The earlier that sole cause of Utility poration Public v. District. greater commenced, action must be Cir., F.2d 94 post-judgment the likelihood of distribu- cases, course, precise most tions material for which stage any publication and dis- in the actual the victim is denied relief whatever.7 period 616; applicable in ac- Mac limitation Ct. L.Ed. Means v. year Publications, F.Supp. (S. libel and slander Fadden D.N.Y.1939) jurisdic- nearly Time, Inc., two-thirds American Cannon Angoff, (S.D.N.Y.1939) ; F.Supp. Handbook of Libel 25 Backus v. tions. Look, F.Supp. (S.D.N.Y. Inc., Weekly Publications, 1941) ; McGlue trap thus The effectiveness of the creat Inc., (D.Mass.1946). And many may be eases seen in where a ed Farley generally, see Stella v. James J. statutory suit, within the lim commenced Ass’n, 998, 122 204 Misc. N.Y.S.2d 322 allegedly printed li for the date on an App.Div. (1953), 135 N. magazine, belous was nonetheless held to Y.S.2d 234 applicable barred be time under the stat possibility of limitations. E. Winrod v. Mc- writers envision ute 7. Several tbe Publications, (N. scheming publisher bring a Eadden that a large could D.Ill.1945), aff’d, (7 Cir., F.2d 180 of a libelous book or other edition point starting printed 72 S. envelopes inserted in mailed Appellees that in the law and vari- maintain political ous “publication” of art which members of the is a word defendant libel association, “[hjundreds upon inter- subject in the and hun- redefinition is not copies” “dropped policy relied dreds of in stores- considerations ests of the upon passed Levy James and around on the street corners.” Justice Stella argue They Farley Ass’n, supra. J. If it is clear that the first technical (under tra- publication of a libel the first periodical of a libelous will sole principles) ditional constitutes ordinarily prior occur to the “on sale” of the date, equally pub it is clear that such pub- rule, that such (under rules) lication ordinarily traditional will normally occurs, like in cases lication delivery prior occur to the one, sale” present prior “on to the periodical distribu periodical. of the Because date suggested tors interpretations commoncarriers. Both Lee, 256 N.Y. decision Ostrowe Gregoire test, comments N.E. 505 therefore, involve a modification of tradi unprivi- text writers to the effect leged publication concepts. tional re Both con- libelous communications quire that communications of the upon periodical of a occur tents which occurred either or subse the author’s dictation of an article to secretary; quent to the date editing during process, “engrossed” single publica into the Lansdale-Ruthaven, Libel Law of plain tion which is said to rise to upon (1934); or Journalists 38 sole cause action under the New tiff’s Hale, manuscript printer, Time, York rule. Cf. Hartmann v. 1948); (3d Law of the Press 148 ed. Cir., (3 166 F.2d 1 A.L.R.2d 370 argue (un- they that the first 838,8 68 S. normally rules) occur der will traditional Ct. 92 L.Ed. 1763. fin- to the “on sale” date of the emphasizing pub- Rather than the first product. was the situation ished Such rules, however, lication under traditional Farley Ass’n, supra, J. Stella James upon test of accrual relied below and offending po- material for the where the Hospital in National Cancer of America August litical was written Confidential, supra, upon turns by August 14, typewritten de- publisher’s possession loss of and con- August 14, printer and on livered to product trol over the finished which proof type run was set in from which upon prod- occur said to Nevertheless, August 16, off sig- uct to distributors. The Appeals subse- the New York Court of purposes nificance of this event Toomey Farley, quently held in N.Y. fixing legal time of 840, 845, N.E.2d 2d 156 N.Y.S.2d entirely clear. (defendants’ appeal (1956) from ad- delivery, The fact that such a without judgment merits) that the verse more, publica- held constitute a was “published” paper rules, tion even under traditional dates Gregoire accrual, August test of early New York decisions concern- from date, according 1951. On that establishing ed, apparently, lia- with findings of the lower court N.Y.S.2d bility newspaper publishers when the 15,000copies 322, 328) were ascertainable sales or communica- running, of limitations then the statute assume if were 8. We that one-year period proceed, abortively prior had when the to the time to terminate run, legal publication with to flood the market under Note, test, L.Q. See Cornell matter. New York courts would allow an (1949) ; upon prior Vand.L.Rev. action based communications ; (1948) repu- 62 Harv.L.Rev. which harmful to the victim’s Single (1949) Leflar, Note, The Publication tation. 62 Harv.L.Rev. Rocky Rule, (1952- Mt.L.Rev. 1042 n. 16 that under holdWe objectionable in suit tions of single publication appellant’s rule York by independent distributors. were made than accrued no earlier cause of action Smith, N.Y. See, Youmens e. 22, 1960, the date on which December need The N.E. 265 went issue “Movie World” March 1961 publication dis- constructive a doctrine of appeared on sale to the at newsstands that established it became when throughout United States. sense) could publisher (in the trade distributors, ir- jointly held liable with parties appeal Both raise to this relationships, agency respective of suggestion that of the interstate because material.9 sale libelous suit, the ultimate character libel in publication doctrine The constructive plaintiff’s action is controlled § provided con- survived, however, and than 51-a precursor, ceptual for a framework provides, Civil Practice Act. Section single publication law, part, in material rule: a cause of action arises “Where that, after “It has asserted state, been can- outside of this an action put newspaper is the edition of the not be in a of this court publisher all loses on sale and the state to enforce such cause circulation, control it would over the expiration lim- after the of the time illogical hold and be unreasonable ited the laws either of this state selling single copy that the country or of the state where * * subsequent to edition a time at cause of action arose printing distri- the date of the and application provision of this bution of the edition without new the context of interstate libel con raises publisher and act of the affirmative problems flict of “of almost incredi laws agent of his the sale would effect James, complexity.” Harper ble publication. constitute a new . Prosser, (1956); 5.16 Interstate Torts § said, case,, it is the later sale Publication, Mich.L.Rev. probable would be the natural and counsel in their cast no briefs have original publication. result of the light upon problem. Plaintiff has al Coffey, 12, Schoepflin 162 56 v. N.Y. leged nationwide distribution Syracuse 502.” v. N.E. Newspapers, Inc., Wolfson March 1961 issue of “Movie World.” 716, 18 by complaint interpreted to Were be 676, (1939) (dissenting N.E.2d 678 principles, traditional libel it would state opinion). multiple (one of action for each causes many material) 'sale New York’s rule as alleged to arisen which would have be laid down in v. Wolfson course, supra, however, of New York Sons, outside State. Of G. P. Putnam’s rule, agen- under York’s New no mere modification of constitutes cy multiple rise to principles jurisprudence. but distributions in New York one cause of action. Whether the rule applies application of the rule In cases the both only engross” distributions to New “to causes was held to cut off or Time, Inc., by York, Hartmann v. 166 cf. of action distributions made 127, (3 Cir., original ;publisher 1948), 1 A.L.R.2d F.2d 370 after the date of itself denied, 68 “publication.” cert. S.Ct. To fix the time of applies or across state independent distributors as time 92 L.Ed. to legal cause of for all rule, lines to create one action under the there- made, publications wherever Tocco fore, cf. v. to burden the rule with a would be Inc., (E.D.Mich. Time, F.Supp. foreign 195 410 conceptual to its ration- scheme yet question considered is a ale. publish procures matter.” defa- to is liable for the 9. “One by person Restatement, f Comment Torts a third whom as his mation servant, agent, otherwise, directs or or he 734 Barry issue,

by practical necessity York courts. v. the New dictates Corp., ordinarily Publications 169 Beacon an action for interstate York (S.D.N.Y.1958). The New tried 441 under be the substantive law equally mute, consequently, one, jurisdic fifty-one, decisions are than action, See, g., Syndi tions. as to where such e. Mattox v. News rule, Co., Inc., would York 897, 900, the New cate if created 176 F.2d 12 A.L. arise, or, pursuant to New Cir., 1949) R.2d 988 be said 338 doctrine, under 525; laws York conflict U.S. 70 S.Ct. 94 L.Ed. gove jurisdiction’s Kelly Loew’s, be law it would Inc., F.Supp. 473, v. what (D.Mass.1948); System Time, rned.10 Dale Inc., (D.Conn.1953); de- Logically, questions each of these Syndicate, Palmisano v. 130 F. News any systematic an answer mands Supp. (S.D.N.Y.1955); Prosser, In appellant’s entire whether determination Publication, terstate 51 Mich.L.Rev. 959 any it, part action, is time-barred or (1953); Note, Harv.L.Rev. Act. At Civil Practice under 13§ (1948) ; Note 16 U.Chi.L.Rev. stage litigation, how- present of this (1949) .11 required ever, to make we are following determinations: B. choice-of-law test New Whatever assume, most courts may ultimately govern as have A. We York choose considered have kind,12 appears, who commentators actions of this provides possible reveals but research [where Our that “it is pub for mass alleged an decision in-which suffered have assumed, with damages special has not been lication libel states] more or two discussion, be controlled out will local law these states of each of Ginsburg Compare plaintiff’s applied law. York substantive to determine the Inc., Company, special damage right Publication Hearst to recover for (1958) 170 N.Y.S.2d A.D.2d with, suffered within its he is to have Inc., Time, territory. Hartmann v. e. aff’d, (Sup.Ct.1945), N.Y.S.2d variety 12. A of solutions as to choice of (1946) ; App.Div. 66 N.Y.S.2d 151 have libel actions been law multistate Liberty Magazine, Campbell-Johnston v. review writers. advanced cases, law Such (Sup.Ct.1945), Inc., N.Y.S.2d 659 suggested, it has been should be App.Div. N.Y.S.2d 581 governed law of: Hospital (1946) ; National Cancer emanation, (a) place or where Confidential, 151 N.Y.S. America physical originating acts defendant’s Toomey Farley, (Sup.Ct.1956) 2d 443 occurred; alleged defamation N.E. 2 N.Y.2d 156 N.Y.S.2d publisher’s (b) state domicile Ginsburg, Appel 2d incorporation; discretionary Division affirmed the late (c) the state where the defendant’s plaintiff’s grounds action on dismissal located; publishing main officeis conveniens, non where neither of forum plaintiff’s (d) domicile, state plaintiff nor New York defendants were major assumption that the harm on special allegation pub residents and no reputation there; plaintiff’s was centered Upon New York lication in was made. (e) the state where the actual- authorities, however, we are unwill these ing ly greatest repu- harm to his suffered is, to assume that it or constitutional ; tation be, ly the New could York choice of law principal (f) plaintiff’s the state of ac- actions that all rule multi-state tivity to which the defamation re- be controlled law are to ; lates forum, however limited the con forum’s principal (g) place circulation; dispute. tacts with the matter Cf. dafamatory (h) the state where Syndicate Co., Inc., Mattox v. News any was first communicated to statement (2 Cir., F.2d A.L.R.2d 988 person; third 1949) (On petition rehearing) ; Na (i) the forum. Associates, goya Esquire, Inc., Inc. v. Law; Leflar, Choice of Torts: Cur- F.Supp. 379, (S.D.N.Y.1961). Trends, (1953) ; rent 6 Vand.L.Rev. Although Law, Note, 1006,1010 (1953) Restatement of the 28 N.Y.U.L.Rev. Second, Laws, Note, (1947) ; Conflict of Tentative Draft 60 Harv.L.Rev. 941 Pal- accord, Syndicate is in § 379e Comment c misano v. News us, If, before finally, plaintiff’s limited record E. facts of the Jersey governed have action Jersey and New be law, New in dis hold, we Jersey with the sufficient contacts the absence of New de source pute issue, as the cisions selection on the to warrant it accru'ed not appellant’s cause governing earlier law for than December and that not, it is therefore, of action.13 barred under the second clause of the New York Civil law, intra-mural If New C. Act, Practice § questions procedural substantive judgment of the district court is action, alike, controls, appellant’s as we reversed and the cause is remanded for determined, not time- heretofore have proceedings further consistent with this York’s Civil 51-a of New barred under § opinion. Practice Act. gov appellant’s MEDINA, Judge D. If (concurring). Circuit Jersey law, of its date New erned concur in agree I that, result and accrual, assume, determined we also us, facts before the New York jurisdiction. Neverthe the law of cases referred majority to in opinion less, granting result, the action even justify the conclusion that under New first clause under the would barred York law a cause of action under New Act, Practice § of the New York Civil single publication York’s rule would ac- performed if, had arisen from acts crue on the March, date when the solely York, have it would within New issue of “Movie appeared World” first under York’s been New barred on the newsstands public, for sale to the rule 51-a § than on shipment by the date of Mor Practice Cassius York Civil Act. common carrier to wholesale distributors. timer, F.Supp. (S.D.N.Y.1957), basis, On this and without further com- Cir., 1958); (2 Asso 252 F.2d 959 ment, would I remand the case for fur- Freedom ciation for the Preservation proceedings. ther grant It was error to Choice, Simon, F.2d 212 Inc. summary judgment dismissing the com- Barry Cir., 1962); Publica plaint. Beacon (S.D. Corp., reargument).14

N.Y.1958) (on motion for MOORE, Judge. Circuit determined, heretofore how have As we

ever, appellant’s action would not have opinion also Judge I concur with the so barred. been MEDINA. (S.D.N.Y.1955) ; if, Restate- courts of New York had the acts com- 2d, Laws, plained solely York, ment Conflict Tentative of occurred in New plaintiff’s Draft No. 379e. cause of action would have single pub- been barred under New York’s appears 13. From the record it that the edi- prop- lication rule. The converse of this preparation March torial 1961 is- osition, however, does not follow. An ac- performed sue of “Movie World” tion which would have been barred York, incorporat- where Interstate is single publication under New York’s rule maga- ed and the defendants reside. The may still be barred under § 13 of the printed was and first zine released to dis- if, Civil Practice Act because an earlier Jersey, tributors where period date of accrual or a shorter of lim- assumed, resides without itation, it would be barred in the courts enjoy more, principal reputation. state where it has arisen. Under sold, course, interpretation applicable our au- Jersey, both New York and New as well thorities, therefore, New York’s throughout as in other states the nation. integral part rule is an of § 13 interpret As we decisions of of the Civil Practice Act. The rule does Simon, not, however, this court fore, in Cassius and there- “run across state lines” to libel, an action for multistate wher- determine the accrual date of actions aris- ing has foreign jurisdictions. ever it arisen and under whatever under the law of governed, law it is will be barred in the

Case Details

Case Name: John Zuck v. Interstate Publishing Corp., John Zuck v. Marjorie Bair, Edward Purcell, Martin Goodman and Jean Goodman

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Date Published: May 10, 1963

Citation: 317 F.2d 727

Docket Number: 27661_1

Court Abbreviation: 2d Cir.