Carpenter v. Carpenter

D.C. Circuit

Carpenter v. Carpenter

156 F.2d 857, 81 U.S. App. D.C. 214, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2651

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 28, 1946

DocketNo. 9188

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 156 F.2d 857 (Carpenter v. Carpenter) 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

Carpenter v. Carpenter, 156 F.2d 857, 81 U.S. App. D.C. 214, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2651 (D.C. Cir. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, a non-resident of the District of Columbia, filed a civil action in the District Court to cancel and set aside a stipulation entered into by her in a probate matter. Appellees moved for security for costs, in accordance with the provisions of the Code.¹ The court granted the motion and allowed appellant twenty days within which to comply. She failed to comply or to request an extension. Appellees moved to dismiss the action for failure of appellant to comply with the order of the court.² Appellant replied, through her attorney, that her failure had been due to misunderstanding and illness and that security would be supplied by a designated date. That date having passed and no extension of time having been requested, the court granted the motion to dismiss. Later, appellant filed a motion for reconsideration, which, after more than a month’s time, the court denied. No bond for security has yet been tendered by appellant.

Appellant says that the dismissal of the case by the District Court was an abuse of discretion. We do not find it so. More than four months elapsed between the filing of the motion, for security for costs and the final denial of the motion for reconsideration. The statute is clear, the rules are clear, and the order of the court requiring the security was clear.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, a non-resident of the District of Columbia, filed a civil action in the District Court to cancel and set aside a stipulation entered into by her in a probate matter. Appellees moved for security for costs, in accordance with the provisions of the Code.¹ The court granted the motion and allowed appellant twenty days within which to comply. She failed to comply or to request an extension. Appellees moved to dismiss the action for failure of appellant to comply with the order of the court.² Appellant replied, through her attorney, that her failure had been due to misunderstanding and illness and that security would be supplied by a designated date. That date having passed and no extension of time having been requested, the court granted the motion to dismiss. Later, appellant filed a motion for reconsideration, which, after more than a month’s time, the court denied. No bond for security has yet been tendered by appellant.

Appellant says that the dismissal of the case by the District Court was an abuse of discretion. We do not find it so. More than four months elapsed between the filing of the motion, for security for costs and the final denial of the motion for reconsideration. The statute is clear, the rules are clear, and the order of the court requiring the security was clear.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 F.2d 857, 81 U.S. App. D.C. 214, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carpenter-v-carpenter-cadc-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack