Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Angus M. MacNeil v. Arthur E. Whittemore, 24927 (1958)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Number: 24927 Visitors: 4
Filed: Apr. 30, 1958
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 254 F.2d 820 Angus M. MacNEIL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arthur E. WHITTEMORE, Defendant-Appellee. No. 258, Docket 24927. United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit. Argued April 14, 1958. Decided April 30, 1958. Angus M. MacNeil, Somerville, Mass., plaintiff-appellant, pro se. Osmer C. Fitts, of Fitts & Olson, Brattleboro, Vt., for defendant-appellee. Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and LUMBARD and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. 1 It is quite clear that this action against a judge of the hig
More

254 F.2d 820

Angus M. MacNEIL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Arthur E. WHITTEMORE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 258, Docket 24927.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued April 14, 1958.
Decided April 30, 1958.

Angus M. MacNeil, Somerville, Mass., plaintiff-appellant, pro se.

Osmer C. Fitts, of Fitts & Olson, Brattleboro, Vt., for defendant-appellee.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and LUMBARD and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

It is quite clear that this action against a judge of the highest court of Massachusetts, who has only a summer place in Vermont, for claimed violation of plaintiff's civil rights through official action does not satisfy the venue requirements of 28 U.S.C. 1391(a), since neither party resides in the District of Vermont. The only claim is waiver, because defendant first sought a dismissal for failure to state a claim and two days later moved for leave to amend his motion by adding the venue objection. When the court came to hear the motion nearly a month later, it granted the leave to amend and then dismissed because of the lack of venue. This was quite proper. The waiver provided in Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., rule 12(h), applies only where a waivable defense is not presented either by motion or by answer; it does not in any way prevent a judge in his discretion from permitting a party to expand the grounds of motion well in advance of a hearing. Plaintiff's application here to strike portions of defendant's brief is denied as wholly frivolous.

2

Affirmed.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer