
    JAMES LINK v. CAROLINA & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
    (Filed 11 December, 1929.)
    Master and Servant E d — Action under Federal Employers’ Liability Act must be brought within two years regardless of infancy.
    The Federal Employer’s Liability Act, providing that no action should be brought thereunder unless commenced within two years from the day from which the cause of action accrued, does not permit an extension of time specified by reason of infancy or other disability, and an action not brought within the .time prescribed will be dismissed.
    Appeal by plaintiff from Sink, Special Judge, at June Special Term, 1929, of MeckleNbubg.
    Civil action to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury.
    Plaintiff alleges that' tbe defendant is a common carrier by railroad, engaged in interstate commerce; tbat on 4 March, 1926, be was a minor 19 years of age, employed by tbe defendant in such commerce, and tbat on said date be was injured through tbe negligence of defendant’s servants or agents.
    
      Tbis action was commenced 18 September, 1928, more tban two years after tbe date of tbe injury.
    From a judgment of nonsuit entered at tbe close of plaintiff’s evidence, be appeals, assigning errors.
    
      Ural R. Murphy and Stewart, MacRae & Bobbitt for plaintiff.
    
    
      J ohn A. Marion and J ohn M. Robinson for defendant.
    
   Stacy, 0. J.

Tbe action was properly dismissed on authority of Murray v. R. R., 196 N. C., 695, 146 S. E., 801, and Belch v. R. R., 176 N. C., 22, 96 S. E., 640.

Tbe Federal Employers’ Liability Act (45 U. S. C. A., sec. 56) provides: “No action shall be maintained under tbis chapter unless commenced within two years from tbe day the cause of action accrued.”

There is no provision in this statute extending or tolling the time for filing suit by reason of infancy or other disability. Gillette v. Del. L. & W. Ry., 102 Atl. (N. J.), 673 (minority of plaintiff); Bement v. Grand Rapids Ry. Co., 160 N. W. (Mich.), 424 (fraudulent representations of defendant’s agent which caused plaintiff to delay); Alvarado v. So. Pac. Ry. Co., 193 S. W. (Tex.), 1108 (insanity resulting from the injury).

Indeed, it has been held with us that a provision in a contract of insurance, limiting the time for instituting suit to recover under the policy, is not affected by the minority of the plaintiff. Beard v. Sovereign Lodge, 184 N. C., 154, 113 S. E., 661; Heilig v. Ins. Co., 152 N. C., 358, 67 S. E., 927.

Affirmed.  