Robert Rowland Hargraves, Jr. v. Leslie S. Bowden, Etc.

Ninth Circuit

Robert Rowland Hargraves, Jr. v. Leslie S. Bowden, Etc.

217 F.2d 839, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3960

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 11, 1954

Docket13744

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 217 F.2d 839 (Robert Rowland Hargraves, Jr. v. Leslie S. Bowden, Etc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robert Rowland Hargraves, Jr. v. Leslie S. Bowden, Etc., 217 F.2d 839, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3960 (9th Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A motion to dismiss was filed because appellant failed (1) to file bond on appeal, (2) to file specifications of error, and (3) to designate the points upon which he would rely. The Court indicated the motion would be granted at the hearing on October 14, 1954, but at the insistence of appellant granted him time to file additional authorities, which he did and also rushed into the Clerk’s office with a bond, which was filed.

It is true the matter lies in discretion. United States v. Gallagher, 9 Cir., 151 F.2d 556. The attorneys should make an attempt to conform to the rules and not try to improvise new practice. At least, the points at issue on appeal should be defined. Based on a flagrant disregard, the motion to dismiss is granted. Federal Rules Civil Procedure, § 73(c), 28 U.S.C.A.; General Orders Bankruptcy, No. 36, 11 U.S.C.A. following section 53; Rules of Procedure, U. S. Court of Appeals, 9 Cir., Rules 19(6), 20(6); Markham v. Kallimanis, 9 Cir., 151 F.2d 145; see Coursey v. International Harvester Co., 10 Cir., 109 F.2d 774, 777.

However, the merits háve been examined so far as the Court was able to discover the error claimed. The Referee in Bankruptcy decided the cause primarily, and his determination was affirmed by the District Judge. No errors in the findings or rules of law are apparent.

Dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

A motion to dismiss was filed because appellant failed (1) to file bond on appeal, (2) to file specifications of error, and (3) to designate the points upon which he would rely. The Court indicated the motion would be granted at the hearing on October 14, 1954, but at the insistence of appellant granted him time to file additional authorities, which he did and also rushed into the Clerk’s office with a bond, which was filed.

It is true the matter lies in discretion. United States v. Gallagher, 9 Cir., 151 F.2d 556. The attorneys should make an attempt to conform to the rules and not try to improvise new practice. At least, the points at issue on appeal should be defined. Based on a flagrant disregard, the motion to dismiss is granted. Federal Rules Civil Procedure, § 73(c), 28 U.S.C.A.; General Orders Bankruptcy, No. 36, 11 U.S.C.A. following section 53; Rules of Procedure, U. S. Court of Appeals, 9 Cir., Rules 19(6), 20(6); Markham v. Kallimanis, 9 Cir., 151 F.2d 145; see Coursey v. International Harvester Co., 10 Cir., 109 F.2d 774, 777.

However, the merits háve been examined so far as the Court was able to discover the error claimed. The Referee in Bankruptcy decided the cause primarily, and his determination was affirmed by the District Judge. No errors in the findings or rules of law are apparent.

Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 F.2d 839, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-rowland-hargraves-jr-v-leslie-s-bowden-etc-ca9-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack