Mary L. Nicol and Frances Nicol McKone v. National Savings & Trust Company, Estate of Frederick E. Johnston, Deceased

250 F.2d 36
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided December 10, 1957·No. 13931·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After our remand in Nicol v. Baird, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 256, 234 F.2d 691, the District Court twice allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint, as they had the previous complaints, for failure to comply with Rule 8(a), F.R.Civ.P., [28 U.S.C.A.] which requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”, and Rule 8(e) (1), which requires that “Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct.” The District Court dismissed the complaint, with prejudice, and the plaintiffs appeal. We find no error. We cannot discover what claim the complaint is intended to make.

Affirmed.

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

Mary L. Nicol and Frances Nicol McKone v. National Savings & Trust Company, Estate of Frederick E. Johnston, Deceased, 250 F.2d 36 (D.C. Cir. 1957).

250 F.2d 36 (Mary L. Nicol and Frances Nicol McKone v. National Savings & Trust Company, Estate of Frederick E. Johnston, Deceased) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jones v. Rivera
District of Columbia, 2023
Brown v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
164 F. Supp. 3d 33 (District of Columbia, 2016)
Brown v. Caesar
District of Columbia, 2016
M.K. v. Tenet
99 F. Supp. 2d 12 (District of Columbia, 2000)
Frank v. Mracek
58 F.R.D. 365 (M.D. Alabama, 1973)