Angus M. MacNeil v. Arthur E. Whittemore

Second Circuit

Angus M. MacNeil v. Arthur E. Whittemore

254 F.2d 820, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4115

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 30, 1958

Docket258, Docket 24927

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 254 F.2d 820 (Angus M. MacNeil v. Arthur E. Whittemore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Angus M. MacNeil v. Arthur E. Whittemore, 254 F.2d 820, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4115 (2d Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It is quite clear that this action against a judge of the highest court of Massachusetts, who has only a summer place in Vermont, for claimed violation of plaintiff’s civil rights through official action does not satisfy the venue requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), since neither party resides in the District of Vermont. The only claim is waiver, because defendant first sought a dismissal for failure to state a claim and two days later moved for leave to amend his motion by adding the venue objection. When the court came to hear the motion nearly a month later, it granted the leave to amend and then dismissed because of the lack of venue. This was quite proper. The waiver provided in Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., rule 12(h), applies only where a waivable defense is not presented either by motion or by answer; it does not in any way prevent a judge in his discretion from permitting a party to expand the grounds of motion well in advance of a hearing. Plaintiff’s application here to strike portions of defendant’s brief is denied as wholly frivolous.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

It is quite clear that this action against a judge of the highest court of Massachusetts, who has only a summer place in Vermont, for claimed violation of plaintiff’s civil rights through official action does not satisfy the venue requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), since neither party resides in the District of Vermont. The only claim is waiver, because defendant first sought a dismissal for failure to state a claim and two days later moved for leave to amend his motion by adding the venue objection. When the court came to hear the motion nearly a month later, it granted the leave to amend and then dismissed because of the lack of venue. This was quite proper. The waiver provided in Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., rule 12(h), applies only where a waivable defense is not presented either by motion or by answer; it does not in any way prevent a judge in his discretion from permitting a party to expand the grounds of motion well in advance of a hearing. Plaintiff’s application here to strike portions of defendant’s brief is denied as wholly frivolous.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 F.2d 820, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/angus-m-macneil-v-arthur-e-whittemore-ca2-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack