Minniola O. Miller v. The Town of Suffield

Second Circuit

Minniola O. Miller v. The Town of Suffield

249 F.2d 16, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 5483

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedOctober 18, 1957

Docket30, Docket 24461

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 249 F.2d 16 (Minniola O. Miller v. The Town of Suffield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Minniola O. Miller v. The Town of Suffield, 249 F.2d 16, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 5483 (2d Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In the guise of a treble-damage antitrust suit, plaintiff is trying to revive the fantastic claims of fraud and conspiracy discussed and rejected in In re Miller, D.C.Conn., 106 F.Supp. 40, affirmed 2 Cir., 198 F.2d 267, certiorari denied Miller v. Guthrie, 345 U.S. 918, 73 S.Ct. 727, 97 L.Ed. 1351, rehearing denied 345 U.S. 971, 73 S.Ct. 1110, 97 L.Ed. 1388. For many years and in a variety of ways she has asserted that the Town of Suffield, The Suffield Savings Bank, and a “pool” of lawyers, brokers, and others have conspired to deprive her of her patrimony in the Miller’s Beach farms in Suffield; but her vague charges, however vigorously asserted, have always lacked substance and substantiation. Judge Smith has dismissed her present complaint because she did not comply with his earlier order that she file a bond for costs and because the complaint fails to state a claim for relief. We agree with the dismissal and the grounds on which it was placed. The order for a moderate bond for costs was surely justified in view of the background of the *17 prior litigation. And the ambiguous allegations here show no legal wrong or impairment of interstate commerce or injury to the public interest.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In the guise of a treble-damage antitrust suit, plaintiff is trying to revive the fantastic claims of fraud and conspiracy discussed and rejected in In re Miller, D.C.Conn., 106 F.Supp. 40, affirmed 2 Cir., 198 F.2d 267, certiorari denied Miller v. Guthrie, 345 U.S. 918, 73 S.Ct. 727, 97 L.Ed. 1351, rehearing denied 345 U.S. 971, 73 S.Ct. 1110, 97 L.Ed. 1388. For many years and in a variety of ways she has asserted that the Town of Suffield, The Suffield Savings Bank, and a “pool” of lawyers, brokers, and others have conspired to deprive her of her patrimony in the Miller’s Beach farms in Suffield; but her vague charges, however vigorously asserted, have always lacked substance and substantiation. Judge Smith has dismissed her present complaint because she did not comply with his earlier order that she file a bond for costs and because the complaint fails to state a claim for relief. We agree with the dismissal and the grounds on which it was placed. The order for a moderate bond for costs was surely justified in view of the background of the *17 prior litigation. And the ambiguous allegations here show no legal wrong or impairment of interstate commerce or injury to the public interest.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 F.2d 16, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 5483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/minniola-o-miller-v-the-town-of-suffield-ca2-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack