Percy T. Stiers v. James I. Martin

Fourth Circuit

Percy T. Stiers v. James I. Martin

277 F.2d 737, 3 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1005, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4742

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 25, 1960

Docket8060

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 277 F.2d 737 (Percy T. Stiers v. James I. Martin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Percy T. Stiers v. James I. Martin, 277 F.2d 737, 3 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1005, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4742 (4th Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After this Court affirmed a judgment awarding damages to the plaintiff, 1 the defendant filed a motion in the District Court under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., by which he sought a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence and fraud. Attached to the motion were the affidavits of three persons stating that the plaintiff rented and planted only three acres of the defendant’s land, rather than ten acres as the plaintiff’s evidence showed and the District Court found.

Who his tenants were and what acreage they planted, the defendant knew, though he did not testify at the trial. He knew, also, of the three witnesses whose affidavits he now tenders, but he did not produce them at the trial. He offers no explanation of his failure to produce one of them. The other two, he says, were out of the state at the time of the trial, but the record does not show what, if any, effort he made to locate them and obtain their testimony.

We think the District Judge properly denied the motion upon the ground that the defendant had not shown due diligence to discover this evidence within the time allowed for a motion for a new trial under Rule 59(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Affirmed.

1

. Stiers v. Martin, 4 Cir., 264 F.2d 795.

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

PER CURIAM.

After this Court affirmed a judgment awarding damages to the plaintiff, 1 the defendant filed a motion in the District Court under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., by which he sought a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence and fraud. Attached to the motion were the affidavits of three persons stating that the plaintiff rented and planted only three acres of the defendant’s land, rather than ten acres as the plaintiff’s evidence showed and the District Court found.

Who his tenants were and what acreage they planted, the defendant knew, though he did not testify at the trial. He knew, also, of the three witnesses whose affidavits he now tenders, but he did not produce them at the trial. He offers no explanation of his failure to produce one of them. The other two, he says, were out of the state at the time of the trial, but the record does not show what, if any, effort he made to locate them and obtain their testimony.

We think the District Judge properly denied the motion upon the ground that the defendant had not shown due diligence to discover this evidence within the time allowed for a motion for a new trial under Rule 59(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Affirmed.

1

. Stiers v. Martin, 4 Cir., 264 F.2d 795.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 F.2d 737, 3 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1005, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/percy-t-stiers-v-james-i-martin-ca4-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack