MacNeil v. Whittemore, 258
| Decision Date | 30 April 1958 |
| Docket Number | Docket 24927.,No. 258,258 |
| Parties | Angus M. MacNEIL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arthur E. WHITTEMORE, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
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.
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.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Manley v. Engram
...benchmark for determining proper venue. See Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co., 145 U.S. 444, 12 S.Ct. 935, 36 L.Ed. 768 (1892); MacNeil v. Whittemore, 254 F.2d 820 (2d Cir.1958); King v. Wall & Beaver St. Corp., 145 F.2d 377, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 234 (1944); R.S. Mikesell Associates v. Grand River Dam A......
-
Bechtel v. Liberty Nat. Bank
...a judge in his discretion from permitting a party to expand the grounds of motion well in advance of a hearing." MacNeil v. Whittemore, 254 F.2d 820, 821 (2d Cir. 9 Defendant's Exhibit 0. 10 Our court has held that evidence of the cost of drilling a new well to supply adequate water may som......
-
Seal v. Riverside Federal Sav. Bank
...a defendant from adding new grounds to a previously-filed motion to dismiss before that motion is ruled upon. See MacNeil v. Whittemore, 254 F.2d 820, 821 (2d Cir.1958) ("Rule 12(h) does not in any way prevent a judge in his discretion from permitting a party to expand the grounds of motion......
-
Wiscovitch–Rentas v. Villa Blanca VB Plaza LLC (In re PMC Mktg. Corp.)
...Miller, Mary Kay Kane, Richard L. Marcus & Adam N. Steinman, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1194 (3d ed.2015) (citing MacNeil v. Whittemore, 254 F.2d 820 (2d Cir.1958) ) (holding trial court properly permitted defendant to amend his motion to dismiss two days after original motion and nea......