Gloria Du Boyce and Pasquale Onofrio v. Kruger & Birch, Inc., Realtors Birch and Maduro, Attorneys and N. O. Wells, Surveyor

Third Circuit

Gloria Du Boyce and Pasquale Onofrio v. Kruger & Birch, Inc., Realtors Birch and Maduro, Attorneys and N. O. Wells, Surveyor

241 F.2d 855, 3 V.I. 597, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3528

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 7, 1957

Docket12021_1

StatusPublished

This text of 241 F.2d 855 (Gloria Du Boyce and Pasquale Onofrio v. Kruger & Birch, Inc., Realtors Birch and Maduro, Attorneys and N. O. Wells, Surveyor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gloria Du Boyce and Pasquale Onofrio v. Kruger & Birch, Inc., Realtors Birch and Maduro, Attorneys and N. O. Wells, Surveyor, 241 F.2d 855, 3 V.I. 597, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3528 (3d Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from an order of the District Court of the Virgin Islands dismissing their civil action for damages for an alleged conspiracy by the defendants to injure them in various ways. The dismissal was ordered because of their failure to appear at the time fixed for trial and prosecute the action. The case was brought without counsel and its prosecution by the plaintiffs appears largely to have been confined to applications for postponement of trial. In three instances the plaintiffs employed counsel to present these applications without giving such counsel authority to appear generally for them. On November 29, 1956, the day which the court had previously peremptorily fixed for trial, a further requested postponement was denied and upon the failure of the plaintiffs to proceed the court entered the order appealed from dismissing the action. The dismissal was with leave to reinstate the action if the plaintiffs should retain counsel who would enter a general appearance for them on or before January 15, 1957. No such appearance was entered, however.

Our examination of the record satisfies us that the District Court was fully justified in the action it took. The reasons given for the requested postponements were largely that this case was dependent on the outcome of the plaintiff Du Boyce’s appeal to this court in the case of Kruger & Birch, Inc. v. Du Boyce in which our opinion has been filed this day, 3 V.I. 599, 241 F.2d 849. An examination of the complaint in the present case, however, shows that the issues which it raises do not in any way involve the boundary dispute which was the subject of that case. The requests for postponement on this ground were clearly friv *599 olous and the last of them was, therefore, quite properly refused.

The order of the District Court will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from an order of the District Court of the Virgin Islands dismissing their civil action for damages for an alleged conspiracy by the defendants to injure them in various ways. The dismissal was ordered because of their failure to appear at the time fixed for trial and prosecute the action. The case was brought without counsel and its prosecution by the plaintiffs appears largely to have been confined to applications for postponement of trial. In three instances the plaintiffs employed counsel to present these applications without giving such counsel authority to appear generally for them. On November 29, 1956, the day which the court had previously peremptorily fixed for trial, a further requested postponement was denied and upon the failure of the plaintiffs to proceed the court entered the order appealed from dismissing the action. The dismissal was with leave to reinstate the action if the plaintiffs should retain counsel who would enter a general appearance for them on or before January 15, 1957. No such appearance was entered, however.

Our examination of the record satisfies us that the District Court was fully justified in the action it took. The reasons given for the requested postponements were largely that this case was dependent on the outcome of the plaintiff Du Boyce’s appeal to this court in the case of Kruger & Birch, Inc. v. Du Boyce in which our opinion has been filed this day, 3 V.I. 599, 241 F.2d 849. An examination of the complaint in the present case, however, shows that the issues which it raises do not in any way involve the boundary dispute which was the subject of that case. The requests for postponement on this ground were clearly friv *599 olous and the last of them was, therefore, quite properly refused.

The order of the District Court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 F.2d 855, 3 V.I. 597, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gloria-du-boyce-and-pasquale-onofrio-v-kruger-birch-inc-realtors-ca3-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack