Mary Margaret Crampton Copperthite v. Albert Redmon

D.C. Circuit

Mary Margaret Crampton Copperthite v. Albert Redmon

261 F.2d 82, 104 U.S. App. D.C. 253, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3203

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedOctober 30, 1958

Docket14366_1

StatusPublished

This text of 261 F.2d 82 (Mary Margaret Crampton Copperthite v. Albert Redmon) 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

Mary Margaret Crampton Copperthite v. Albert Redmon, 261 F.2d 82, 104 U.S. App. D.C. 253, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3203 (D.C. Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants brought suit in the District Court for, inter alia, reconveyance of real property, alleging that the property had been fraudulently obtained from Joseph B. Copperthite in 1942 through breach of trust. A former suit involving the same subject matter had been dismissed with prejudice in 1949, following a settlement out of court. Appellants additionally alleged that the settlement had been fraudulently procured.

The court below dismissed the complaint, stating that appellants had unduly delayed instituting these proceedings. For reasons advanced by the District Court, its order must be

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants brought suit in the District Court for, inter alia, reconveyance of real property, alleging that the property had been fraudulently obtained from Joseph B. Copperthite in 1942 through breach of trust. A former suit involving the same subject matter had been dismissed with prejudice in 1949, following a settlement out of court. Appellants additionally alleged that the settlement had been fraudulently procured.

The court below dismissed the complaint, stating that appellants had unduly delayed instituting these proceedings. For reasons advanced by the District Court, its order must be

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 F.2d 82, 104 U.S. App. D.C. 253, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mary-margaret-crampton-copperthite-v-albert-redmon-cadc-1958.