Armour v. Flook

D.C. Circuit

Armour v. Flook

44 App. D.C. 415, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2614

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 7, 1916

DocketNo. 2867

StatusPublished

This text of 44 App. D.C. 415 (Armour v. Flook) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Armour v. Flook, 44 App. D.C. 415, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2614 (D.C. Cir. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court:

In his assignments of error he denies the authority of the court to enter a judgment before the expiration of twenty days after the substitute affidavit was filed, and also objects to the sufficiency of the said affidavit.

There was no error in the judgment. The order to substitute the affidavit was expressly authorized by the District Code, sec. 399 [31 Stat. at L. 1252, chap. 854]. The defendant had filed his pleas within the time permitted by the rules, and, when called on by the court, declined to file an affidavit of defense.

After the appearance of defendant, the granting of additional time to plead and leave to amend affidavits was within the discretion of the court.

Defendant asked no further time to plead, gave no reason therefor, and refused to file an affidavit when the motion was called.

The judgment was right and is affirmed, with costs.

Affirmed.

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