Blaine v. Peters, 11165.
| Citation | 90 US App. DC 207,194 F.2d 887 |
| Decision Date | 07 February 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 11165.,11165. |
| Parties | BLAINE v. PETERS. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
Jesse Lee Hall, Washington, D. C., with whom Achilles Catsonis, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.
Before EDGERTON, PROCTOR, and BAZELON, Circuit Judges.
A judgment was entered on a jury's verdict in favor of appellant and against appellee on February 16, 1951. Appellee's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative for a new trial, was filed February 21, 1951. By inadvertence this motion was immediately denied. Expressly because of this "inadvertence" the District Court on April 5, 1951 set aside the denial. The court then granted the motion for new trial which it had thus reinstated.
Appellant contends the order of April 5, and the court's subsequent refusal to vacate it, violated Rule 59(d), F.R.Civ. P., 28 U.S.C.A., which provides: "Not later than 10 days after entry of judgment the court of its own initiative may order a new trial for any reason for which it might have granted a new trial on motion of a party, and in the order shall specify the grounds therefor." In our opinion this Rule is irrelevant. The court did not order a new trial "of its own initiative" but on appellee's motion. Though that motion had once been inadvertently denied, it was properly before the court after the denial was set aside. Rule 60(a) expressly provides that "Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative or on the motion of any party * * *."
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelly v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company
...of the denial of a motion to quash a summons and dismiss an action, an interlocutory and nonappealable order. Blaine v. Peters, 1952, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 207, 194 F.2d 887 held correctable under Rule 60(a) as a "clerical mistake" the inadvertent denial of motions for judgment n.o.v. and a new t......
-
Beyer v. Montoya
...at any time of the court's 'own initiative' as provided in rule 60(a) (Sec. 21-1-1(60) (a), N.M.S.A.1953). Blaine v. Peters (1952), 90 U.S.AppD.C. 207, 194 F.2d 887. Also, compare De Baca v. Sais, 44 N.M. 105, 99 P.2d 106, and Martin v. Leonard Motor Co., supra. We so hold. It follows that ......
-
Continental Oil Co. v. Williams
...through oversight or omission. Thus his action was within the scope of Rule 60(a). A similar order was allowed in Blaine v. Peters, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 207, 194 F.2d 887 (1952), where the District Court inadvertently denied a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternat......
-
Warner v. City of Bay St. Louis
...allegation that this error is a typographical or transcribing mistake, or the mistake was an inadvertent one. See Blaine v. Peters, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 207, 194 F.2d 887 (1952). Nor is this a case where the court sought to make more specific its order allowing interest. United States v. Kenner,......