From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hill v. Capital Transit Co.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
May 17, 1943
135 F.2d 948 (D.C. Cir. 1943)

Opinion

No. 8057.

Argued May 4, 1943.

Decided May 17, 1943.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

Action by Harley G. Hill, administrator of the estate of Laura Rutan, deceased, against Capital Transit Company. From a judgment dismissing case for want of prosecution, the plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Mr. Leroy S. Bendheim, of Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Arthur L. Willcher, of Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for appellant. Mr. Isadore H. Halpern, of Washington, D.C., was on the brief for appellant.

Mr. H.W. Kelly, of Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. R.E. Lee Goff, of Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellee. Mr. S.R. Bowen, of Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for appellee.

Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and EDGERTON and ARNOLD, Associate Justices.


The attorney for the appellant filed a motion for continuance in the court below on the ground that his health required rest and relief from trial work for several months. The motion was denied and subsequently the case dismissed for want of prosecution. The record shows that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion for continuance and the judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Hill v. Capital Transit Co.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
May 17, 1943
135 F.2d 948 (D.C. Cir. 1943)
Case details for

Hill v. Capital Transit Co.

Case Details

Full title:HILL v. CAPITAL TRANSIT CO

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: May 17, 1943

Citations

135 F.2d 948 (D.C. Cir. 1943)

Citing Cases

Union Storage Transfer Co. v. Lamphere

Certainly the refusal of the continuance may not be regarded as a "clear abuse of discretion." Gilbert v.…