Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

42 App. D.C. 346

Gladman v. Stoddart

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · decided 1914-05-22

Hearing on a motion by appellants for an extension of time witbin which to file a brief, and on a motion by the appellee to dismiss or affirm. The Court in the opinion stated the facts as follows: This is an appeal from a decree entered January 28, 1914, and an order denying a motion to vacate the same. The transcript has been printed. The time within which appellants’ brief should have been filed expired May 18th.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1946

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Motion for extension of time denied, and, the brief not… · Decided 1914-05-22

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court:

¶2The assignment of errors, so far as based upon matters at issue in the pleadings, could not be considered in the absence of a statement of the evidence. Another is that the court erred in discharging defendant from his agency without notice to or acquiescence by the remaindermen. Others set up the same grounds upon which the motion to vacate was founded.

¶3It appears, therefore, that the only grounds upon which the appeal could be heard are purely technical, relating to the time required of notice of calendaring and hearing the cause, and approving the last report of the receiver without sufficient notice and an audit of the same.

¶4Without pausing to determine whether the grounds of appeal are so frivolous as to warrant summary affirmance, we are of opinion that they do not justify an extension of the time for filing the brief, upon the grounds stated in the application. The thirty days allowed for filing brief were ample. The application for extension is denied, and for the failure to file brief, the appeal must be dismissed. Appeal dismissed.

/42/appdc/346 · .json · Public domain