Levay v. Marvins Credit, Inc., 1883.
| Decision Date | 06 December 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 1883.,1883. |
| Citation | 127 A.2d 554 |
| Parties | Joseph L. DE LEVAY, Appellant, v. MARVINS CREDIT, Inc., Vendee of Abraham L. Phillips, Lowell Hannock and Daniel A. Hannock, t/a Eiseman's, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Joseph L. DeLevay, pro se.
Before ROVER, Chief Judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.
On October 19, 1955, appellant's complaint was dismissed, without prejudice, for want of prosecution. More than six months later appellant moved to set aside the order of dismissal. This motion was denied on June 1, 1956. On June 5 appellant moved to vacate the order of June 1. This was denied on August 9 and notice of appeal was filed on August 20.
The notice of appeal purports to be from the order of August 9, but that order was nothing more than a denial of a motion to reconsider a previously denied motion and such an order is not appealable1 Nor does such a motion to reconsider extend the time for taking an appeal2 and, because of lapse of time, we cannot consider the appeal as taken from the order of June 1.
Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
FRAIN v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
...order. Coleman, supra, 388 A.2d at 45; 901 Corporation v. A. Sandler Co., 254 A.2d 411, 412 (D.C. 1969); DeLevay v. Marvins Credit, Inc., 127 A.2d 554 (D.C. 1956) (per curiam); cf. Wallace, supra, 482 A.2d at 810 n. 7. See, e.g., Stauber v. Kieser, 810 F.2d 1 (10th Cir. 1982) ("by granting ......
-
Dublin v. United States
...we held that the denial of a motion for reconsideration of a final order is not an appealable order. See also De Levay v. Marvins Credit, Inc., D.C.Mun. App., 127 A.2d 554 (1956). Application of that rule to this case requires us to view the instant appeal as taken from the order of May 10,......
-
Vincent v. Anderson, 89-CV-1107.
...No. 730, 482 A.2d 801, 803 n. 5 (D.C.1984); Coleman v. Lee Washington Hauling Co., 388 A.2d 44, 47 (D.C.1978); De Levay v. Marvin's Credit Inc., 127 A.2d 554 (D.C.1956). Appellee argues correctly that a Rule 60(b) motion does not. Smith v. Canada, 305 A.2d 521, 522 (D.C.1973). Although a mo......
- Hammond v. District of Columbia, 1884.