Thompson v. Conroy

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Thompson v. Conroy

8 App. D.C. 145, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 3158

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 4, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 8 App. D.C. 145 (Thompson v. Conroy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thompson v. Conroy, 8 App. D.C. 145, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 3158 (D.C. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Alvey

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The allowance of an appeal in this case would make a precedent that would likely prove mischievous in practice. The object of the appeal, it seems, is to get from this court a decision as to what constitutes a frivolous ground of demurrer to a declaration, and when the court below should strike out such demurrer and proceed to give judgment under the rule as for the want of an affidavit to the plea. The simple and more regular course would seem to be, to join issue on the demurrer, and have it ruled upon without delay, and thus get rid of the demurrer. We do not think that it would be in the interest of justice to allow the appeal. In fact there has been no judgment, interlocutory or otherwise, such as contemplated by the statute, for an appeal.

Motion denied and petition dismissed.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Alvey

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The allowance of an appeal in this case would make a precedent that would likely prove mischievous in practice. The object of the appeal, it seems, is to get from this court a decision as to what constitutes a frivolous ground of demurrer to a declaration, and when the court below should strike out such demurrer and proceed to give judgment under the rule as for the want of an affidavit to the plea. The simple and more regular course would seem to be, to join issue on the demurrer, and have it ruled upon without delay, and thus get rid of the demurrer. We do not think that it would be in the interest of justice to allow the appeal. In fact there has been no judgment, interlocutory or otherwise, such as contemplated by the statute, for an appeal.

Motion denied and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 App. D.C. 145, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 3158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-conroy-dc-1896.