Thomas M. Frey v. Benton Davis and Ruth Davis

D.C. Circuit

Thomas M. Frey v. Benton Davis and Ruth Davis

229 F.2d 774, 97 U.S. App. D.C. 200, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3761

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 8, 1955

Docket12618_1

StatusPublished

This text of 229 F.2d 774 (Thomas M. Frey v. Benton Davis and Ruth Davis) 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

Thomas M. Frey v. Benton Davis and Ruth Davis, 229 F.2d 774, 97 U.S. App. D.C. 200, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3761 (D.C. Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In 1953 appellant Frey filed a civil action in the District Court based upon a transaction entered upon in 1944 and as to which fraud was discovered by him in 1948. He had filed a prior suit in 1949, but it was dismissed upon his motion. In the present suit defendants pleaded the statute of limitations. Plaintiff invoked the proviso of Section 201, Title 12, District of Columbia Code, 1 that the statute of limitations is tolled if a person entitled to maintain the action is “at the time of the accruing of such right of action” imprisoned. Plaintiff said he was imprisoned (although he was present in court) when the prior action came to trial in 1953. The District Court held the proviso not to apply and dismissed the case. We find no error, and its order will be

Affirmed.

1

. 31 Stat. 1389 (1901), as amended.

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

PER CURIAM.

In 1953 appellant Frey filed a civil action in the District Court based upon a transaction entered upon in 1944 and as to which fraud was discovered by him in 1948. He had filed a prior suit in 1949, but it was dismissed upon his motion. In the present suit defendants pleaded the statute of limitations. Plaintiff invoked the proviso of Section 201, Title 12, District of Columbia Code, 1 that the statute of limitations is tolled if a person entitled to maintain the action is “at the time of the accruing of such right of action” imprisoned. Plaintiff said he was imprisoned (although he was present in court) when the prior action came to trial in 1953. The District Court held the proviso not to apply and dismissed the case. We find no error, and its order will be

Affirmed.

1

. 31 Stat. 1389 (1901), as amended.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 F.2d 774, 97 U.S. App. D.C. 200, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-m-frey-v-benton-davis-and-ruth-davis-cadc-1955.