Dodd v. Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc.

Ninth Circuit

Dodd v. Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc.

308 F.2d 673, 6 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 514

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 24, 1962

DocketNo. 17519

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 308 F.2d 673 (Dodd v. Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dodd v. Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc., 308 F.2d 673, 6 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 514 (9th Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants Norman Dodd and Aaron M. Sargent, two of three trustees named in a joint venture agreement with Ap-pellee Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc., have appealed to this Court from an Order of the trial court denying their motion to be substituted as counter-claimants in this litigation.

In reaching our decision here we are assuming, without deciding, that the order denying the motion for substitution is appealable.

The substitution or joinder of Appellants as counterclaimants rested in the discretion of the district court and was not mandatory. Rule 25(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.; Virginia Land Co. v. Miami Shipbuilding Corp., 201 F.2d 506 (5th Cir.1953); Sun-Maid Raisin Growers of California v. California Packing Corporation, 273 F.2d 282 (9th Cir.1959).

On an examination of the record we are satisfied that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion of Appellants.

Affirmed.

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