Gilmore v. Hinman

D.C. Circuit

Gilmore v. Hinman

191 F.2d 652, 89 U.S. App. D.C. 165, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2594

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 21, 1951

Docket10849_1

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 191 F.2d 652 (Gilmore v. Hinman) 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

Gilmore v. Hinman, 191 F.2d 652, 89 U.S. App. D.C. 165, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2594 (D.C. Cir. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellees brought a civil action to set aside a conveyance of real estate. Appellant filed a cross-complaint for services rendered and for sums expended upon the property. After trial before the court without a jury, the judge made findings of fact and conclusions of law and referred the matter to the Auditor of the court for a report stating the account between the parties. The Auditor held hearings and made a report, to which all parties excepted. The court heard the exceptions, modified the report, and then ratified and confirmed it as modified. Final judgment was entered May 23, 1949. An appeal was noted but not perfected, and so was dismissed.

On October 11, 1950, appellant filed in the District Court a motion to revoke the reference to the Auditor and set aside the judgment. The motion was denied, and appellant appealed on the ground that the trial court lacked authority to make the reference to the Auditor.

We think the action of the trial court in making the reference was proper, *653 and, moreover, the motion to vacate the judgment was filed too late. Sixteen months is not “a reasonable time” under these circumstances. Rule 60(b), Fed.R. Civ.P., 28 U.S.C.A. None of the reasons specified in the Rule are present. No other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment appears, and a motion of this sort cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal.

The order of the District Court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellees brought a civil action to set aside a conveyance of real estate. Appellant filed a cross-complaint for services rendered and for sums expended upon the property. After trial before the court without a jury, the judge made findings of fact and conclusions of law and referred the matter to the Auditor of the court for a report stating the account between the parties. The Auditor held hearings and made a report, to which all parties excepted. The court heard the exceptions, modified the report, and then ratified and confirmed it as modified. Final judgment was entered May 23, 1949. An appeal was noted but not perfected, and so was dismissed.

On October 11, 1950, appellant filed in the District Court a motion to revoke the reference to the Auditor and set aside the judgment. The motion was denied, and appellant appealed on the ground that the trial court lacked authority to make the reference to the Auditor.

We think the action of the trial court in making the reference was proper, *653 and, moreover, the motion to vacate the judgment was filed too late. Sixteen months is not “a reasonable time” under these circumstances. Rule 60(b), Fed.R. Civ.P., 28 U.S.C.A. None of the reasons specified in the Rule are present. No other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment appears, and a motion of this sort cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal.

The order of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 F.2d 652, 89 U.S. App. D.C. 165, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilmore-v-hinman-cadc-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack