Hallowell v. Darling

D.C. Circuit

Hallowell v. Darling

32 App. D.C. 405

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 5, 1909

DocketNo. 1922

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 32 App. D.C. 405 (Hallowell v. Darling) 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

Hallowell v. Darling, 32 App. D.C. 405 (D.C. Cir. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Robb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

It is familiar law that an application to open or vacate a judgment is addressed to the sound legal discretion of the trial court, and that the exercise of such judgment either in granting or refusing the application will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clear that there has been an abuse of discretion. Meyers v. Davis, 13 App. D. C. 364; Magruder v. Schley, 17 App. D. C. 227; 23 Cyc. Law & Proc. p. 895; 15 Enc. Pl. & Pr. p. 281.

The question, therefore, presented, is whether there has been such an abuse of discretion in this case as to warrant this court in entertaining the appeal. The appellant bases her contention that the motion to set aside the judgment should have been granted upon facts alleged in certain affidavits which are printed in the record. There is no bill of exceptions. These affidavits are not referred to in appellant’s motion, and there is nothing in the record to show that they were before the court when the motion was denied. The order of the court denying the motion makes no mention of them. Even if we should assume, which we are not at liberty to do, that these affidavits were before the court, the appellant would be in no better position because we could not assume that other evidence fully warranting the conclusion reached was not before the court. Hart v. Hines, 10 App. D. C. 366.

There being nothing in the record showing an abuse of discretion by the trial court in overruling appellant’s motion, the judgment is affirmed with costs. Affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied February 2, 1909.

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

Mr. Justice Robb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

It is familiar law that an application to open or vacate a judgment is addressed to the sound legal discretion of the trial court, and that the exercise of such judgment either in granting or refusing the application will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clear that there has been an abuse of discretion. Meyers v. Davis, 13 App. D. C. 364; Magruder v. Schley, 17 App. D. C. 227; 23 Cyc. Law & Proc. p. 895; 15 Enc. Pl. & Pr. p. 281.

The question, therefore, presented, is whether there has been such an abuse of discretion in this case as to warrant this court in entertaining the appeal. The appellant bases her contention that the motion to set aside the judgment should have been granted upon facts alleged in certain affidavits which are printed in the record. There is no bill of exceptions. These affidavits are not referred to in appellant’s motion, and there is nothing in the record to show that they were before the court when the motion was denied. The order of the court denying the motion makes no mention of them. Even if we should assume, which we are not at liberty to do, that these affidavits were before the court, the appellant would be in no better position because we could not assume that other evidence fully warranting the conclusion reached was not before the court. Hart v. Hines, 10 App. D. C. 366.

There being nothing in the record showing an abuse of discretion by the trial court in overruling appellant’s motion, the judgment is affirmed with costs. Affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied February 2, 1909.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 App. D.C. 405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hallowell-v-darling-cadc-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack