Dixon v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

Second Circuit

Dixon v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

159 F.2d 863, 72 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 253, 1947 U.S. App. LEXIS 3803

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedFebruary 3, 1947

Docket91, Docket 20364

StatusPublished

Cited by24 cases

This text of 159 F.2d 863 (Dixon v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.) 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

Dixon v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 159 F.2d 863, 72 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 253, 1947 U.S. App. LEXIS 3803 (2d Cir. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

We think plaintiff failed to show adequate ground for delay in bringing his suit. His affidavits show that in 1937 he knew all the facts which he knew when he instituted his suit in 1943. The only excuse he gives is that in August 1940 he suffered a serious accident. We assume (although, in his affidavits, he does not so state) that the result of this accident wholly incapacitated him from August 1940 to the date when he brought this suit. But he states no sufficient reason for the delay from 1937 to 1940. Since 1937, three of the lawyers connected with the patent action, who might well have been important witnesses for the defendants, have died.

The facts bearing on the issue of laches are wholly within plaintiff’s knowledge; nothing that could be learned at a trial could add to the data bearing on that issue; with respect thereto, he is in nowise dependent “on what he can draw out of” the defendants. 1 Had there been a trial, none of the defendants, by their testimony, would have contributed anything concerning the reasons for the delay; if, at a trial, his testimony had been in accord with his affidavits and had been believed, nevertheless dismissal for laches would have been necessary. As a trial would have involved no question of credibility, our precedents are not in point. 2 Since, as to laches, there was no issue of fact but only one of “law,” the vice of “trial by affidavits” 3 is here absent, and the summary judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

Bozant v. Bank of New York, 2 Cir., 156 F.2d 787, 790.

2

Arnstein v. Porter, 2 Cir., 154 F.2d 464, 473, 474; Bozant v. Bank of New York, supra; Doehler Metal Furniture Co. v. United States, 2 Cir., 149 F.2d 130, 135; Bushwick-Decatur Motors v. Ford Motor Co., 2 Cir., 116 F.2d 675, see also Avrick v. Rockmont Envelope Co., 10 Cir., 155 F.2d 568, 571, 573; Krug v. Santa Fe Pac. R. Co., App.D.C., 158 F.2d 317, 320.

3

See Arnstein v. Porter, supra, at 471.

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

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

We think plaintiff failed to show adequate ground for delay in bringing his suit. His affidavits show that in 1937 he knew all the facts which he knew when he instituted his suit in 1943. The only excuse he gives is that in August 1940 he suffered a serious accident. We assume (although, in his affidavits, he does not so state) that the result of this accident wholly incapacitated him from August 1940 to the date when he brought this suit. But he states no sufficient reason for the delay from 1937 to 1940. Since 1937, three of the lawyers connected with the patent action, who might well have been important witnesses for the defendants, have died.

The facts bearing on the issue of laches are wholly within plaintiff’s knowledge; nothing that could be learned at a trial could add to the data bearing on that issue; with respect thereto, he is in nowise dependent “on what he can draw out of” the defendants. 1 Had there been a trial, none of the defendants, by their testimony, would have contributed anything concerning the reasons for the delay; if, at a trial, his testimony had been in accord with his affidavits and had been believed, nevertheless dismissal for laches would have been necessary. As a trial would have involved no question of credibility, our precedents are not in point. 2 Since, as to laches, there was no issue of fact but only one of “law,” the vice of “trial by affidavits” 3 is here absent, and the summary judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

Bozant v. Bank of New York, 2 Cir., 156 F.2d 787, 790.

2

Arnstein v. Porter, 2 Cir., 154 F.2d 464, 473, 474; Bozant v. Bank of New York, supra; Doehler Metal Furniture Co. v. United States, 2 Cir., 149 F.2d 130, 135; Bushwick-Decatur Motors v. Ford Motor Co., 2 Cir., 116 F.2d 675, see also Avrick v. Rockmont Envelope Co., 10 Cir., 155 F.2d 568, 571, 573; Krug v. Santa Fe Pac. R. Co., App.D.C., 158 F.2d 317, 320.

3

See Arnstein v. Porter, supra, at 471.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 F.2d 863, 72 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 253, 1947 U.S. App. LEXIS 3803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dixon-v-american-telephone-telegraph-co-ca2-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack