Summary
finding trial court committed no error in dismissing the appellant's case where after time to comply with order to file a more specific and definite complaint had expired, the appellees filed their timely motion to dismiss the original complaint, and the appellants filed an amended complaint two months later
Summary of this case from Page v. MandelOpinion
No. 13698.
Argued January 21, 1958.
Decided February 13, 1958. Petition for Rehearing Denied March 17, 1958.
Mr. Garfield C. Thompson, Washington, D.C., submitted on the brief for appellants.
Mr. J. Franklin Wilson, Washington, D.C., filed a brief for appellees and their case was treated as submitted thereon.
Before WASHINGTON, DANAHER and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.
After a series of procedural steps in the District Court, Thompson and Hankerson, appellants here, on June 29, 1956, were granted an additional twenty days within which to file a more specific and definite complaint. The time for compliance having expired, the appellees on July 30, 1956, filed their timely motion to dismiss the original complaint. Some two months later, the appellants filed an amended complaint on October 1, 1956. Cutting through the maze, and after oral argument, the District Court, on October 3, 1956, granted the appellees' motion to dismiss, and struck the appellants' amended complaint because of their failure to comply with the earlier order of the court. We have been shown no error in the disposition of the case.
Affirmed.