May v. Melvin, 8538.
| Decision Date | 06 March 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 8538.,8538. |
| Citation | 141 F.2d 22,78 US App. DC 368 |
| Parties | MAY v. MELVIN. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Frank R. Long, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Richard L. Merrick, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and MILLER and EDGERTON, Associate Justices.
In a suit for alienation of affections the District Court, sitting without a jury, gave judgment to the defendant and the plaintiff appeals. Appellant complains that she was denied a jury trial. But she failed to demand one, as Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 38(b), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, requires, within ten days after the service of the last pleading directed to the issue. The last pleading, appellee's answer, was served on July 15, 1941. Appellant's demand for a jury was first made at pretrial, in November 1942.
By the express terms of Rule 38(d), a jury had long since been waived.1 Appellant offered no excuse except the "inadvertence" of former counsel. Though the court might, in its discretion, have ordered a jury trial, it was under no obligation to do so.2 Since Rule 38(b) explicitly measures delay from "the service of the last pleading," there is no merit in appellant's contention that there is no "issue" within the meaning of the rule until pretrial.
Appellant contends that the trial court based its decision on the absence of illicit relations, and failed to recognize that appellant's loss of her husband's companionship was the gist of the action. We think the court rightly based its decision on the fact that appellant failed to establish any wrongful conduct on the part of appellee, or any conduct which caused appellant's loss.3
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Christenson v. Diversified Builders Incorporated, 7398.
...Inch, 2 Cir., 203 F.2d 79; Gulbenkian v. Gulbenkian, 2 Cir., 147 F.2d 173; Rodenbur v. Kaufmann, D.C.Cir., 320 F.2d 679; May v. Melvin, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 368, 141 F.2d 22; 5 Moore's Federal Practice (2nd Ed.), § 38.43, pp. 332-338. And, where there are multiple parties in the suit, the right ......
-
Vannoy v. Cooper
...lack of prejudice outweigh the fact that the failure to make a timely request resulted from the inadvertence of counsel); May v. Melvin, 141 F.2d 22, 78 (D.C.Cir.1944) (trial judge might, in his discretion, have granted untimely motion for jury trial, but did not commit error by denying the......
-
Kass v. Baskin
...App.D.C. 321, 87 F.2d 224. 13 Supra note 7. 14 Daly v. Scala, 39 A.2d 478 (1944); Barnes v. Conner, 44 A.2d 925 (1945). 15 1944, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 368, 141 F.2d 22; see also McNabb v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co., 8 Cir., 1943, 139 F.2d 16 Bell v. Westbrook, supra note 11. 17 Compare Wilson & Co......
-
Rodenbur v. Kaufmann
...(1937); Beacon Theatres v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 510, 79 S.Ct. 948, 3 L.Ed.2d 988 (1959). 18 Fed.R.Civ.P. 38(d); May v. Melvin, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 368, 141 F.2d 22 (1944); Kass v. Baskin, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 385, 164 F.2d 513 (1947) and cases 19 Fed.R.Civ.P. 39(a); and see Bass v. Hoagland, 172 ......