Ainsworth v. Gill Glass & Fixture Co.
Decision Date | 05 May 1939 |
Docket Number | No. 6930.,6930. |
Citation | 104 F.2d 83 |
Parties | AINSWORTH v. GILL GLASS & FIXTURE CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Harry Lea Dodson, of New York City, and Robert M. Barr, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
John W. Hallahan, of Philadelphia, Pa., and John M. Cole, of New York City (George F. Scull, of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before MARIS, BIDDLE, and BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judges.
The appellee has moved to dismiss an appeal taken by the appellant from a final decree entered on December 21, 1938, in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The motion is upon the ground that the appellant failed to comply with the requirements of Subdivision (g) of Federal Procedure Rule 73, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, as to the filing of the record on appeal. Subdivision (g) of Rule 73 is as follows:
In the present case the record was not filed with this court within 40 days, nor did the District Court within that period extend the time for filing it. However, on February 28, 1939, 63 days after the date of the notice of appeal, the District Court without notice or hearing entered the following order: "It is hereby ordered that Appellant's time for completing his appeal be extended to and including March 25, 1939."
The appellee argues that this order was not made within the period of 40 days and, therefore, the District Court had no authority to make it under Subdivision (g) of Rule 73. In reply to this argument the appellant calls our attention to the provisions of Subdivision (b) of Rule 6 which, he argues, conferred upon the District Court authority to make the extension out of time. The provisions of Subdivision (b) are as follows:
It will be seen that this rule confers general authority upon the District Courts to enlarge periods of time fixed by the rules for the doing of acts required to be done by litigants. The filing of the record on appeal is such an act, and it would, therefore, appear that this rule would authorize the extension of the time for filing the record, the matter specifically provided for by Subdivision (g) of Rule 73. So far as concerns the extension of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Westinghouse Elec. Supply Co. v. Healy Corp.
...the appeal. Pyramid Motor Freight Corp. v. Ispass, 330 U.S. 695, 702--705, 67 S.Ct. 954, 91 L.Ed. 1184 (1947). Ainsworth v. Gill Glass & Fixture Co., 104 F.2d 83 (3rd Cir. 1939). Brennan v. United Fruit Co., 108 F.2d 710 (5th Cir. 1940). Pang-Tsu Mow v. Republic of China, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 13......
-
Glenn v. American Surety Co.
...The courts, in general, have liberally construed the rule. Mosier v. Federal Reserve Bank, 2 Cir., 132 F.2d 710; Ainsworth v. Gill Glass & Fixture Co., 3 Cir., 104 F.2d 83; National Surety Corp. v. Williams, 8 Cir., 110 F.2d A more fundamental and less technical ground for permitting the ex......
-
Anderson v. Yungkau
...with a limited staff, could not during this time keep up with the changes of residence or deaths of defendants. 2 Cf. Ainsworth v. Gill Glass & Fixture Co., 3 Cir., 104 F.2d 83, with Burke v. Canfield, 72 App.D.C. 127, 111 F.2d 526, and Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n v. Snyder, 6 Ci......
-
Sweeney v. Winslow Gas Co.
... ... not been in agreement on their construction. In Ainsworth ... v. Gill Glass & Fixture Co., 3 Cir., 1939, 104 F.2d 83, ... 84, the ... ...