Armour v. Flook

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Decided February 7, 1916

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · decided 1916-02-07

Hearing on an appeal by tbe defendant from a judgment of tbe Supreme Court of the District of Columbia for want of an affidavit of defense in an action on a promissory note. Tbe Court in tbe opinion stated tbe facts as follows: Tbis is an appeal from judgment rendered on motion under tbe 73d rule of tbe supreme court of tbe District of Columbia.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1930

1 district ·

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1916-02-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court:

¶2In his assignments of error he denies the authority of the court to enter a judgment before the expiration of twenty days after the substitute affidavit was filed, and also objects to the sufficiency of the said affidavit.

¶3There was no error in the judgment. The order to substitute the affidavit was expressly authorized by the District Code, sec. 399 [31 Stat. at L. 1252, chap. 854]. The defendant had filed his pleas within the time permitted by the rules, and, when called on by the court, declined to file an affidavit of defense.

¶4After the appearance of defendant, the granting of additional time to plead and leave to amend affidavits was within the discretion of the court.

¶5Defendant asked no further time to plead, gave no reason therefor, and refused to file an affidavit when the motion was called.

¶6The judgment was right and is affirmed, with costs.

¶7Affirmed.