Miller v. Town of Suffield
| Decision Date | 18 October 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 30,Docket 24461.,30 |
| Citation | 249 F.2d 16 |
| Parties | Minniola O. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The TOWN OF SUFFIELD et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Minniola O. Miller, plaintiff-appellant, pro se.
Joseph P. Cooney, Hartford, Conn., for defendant-appellee Town of Suffield.
Howard J. Maxwell, of Steele, Collins & Maxwell, Hartford, Conn., for defendant-appellee The Suffield Savings Bank.
John S. Murtha, of Shepherd, Murtha & Merritt, Hartford, Conn., for defendant-appellee Alcorn, Bakewell & Smith.
Francis J. Fahey, Thompsonville, Conn., defendant-appellee, pro se.
John D. LaBelle, Manchester, Conn., for defendant-appellee Sebastian Gambolati.
Bernard Francis, West Hartford, Conn., for defendants-appellees Russell L. Gillette and Rose M. Gillette.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and LUMBARD and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
In the guise of a treble-damage antitrust suit, plaintiff is trying to revive the fantastic claims of fraud and conspiracy discussed and rejected in In re Miller, D.C.Conn., 106 F.Supp. 40, affirmed 2 Cir., 198 F.2d 267, certiorari denied Miller v. Guthrie, 345 U.S. 918, 73 S.Ct. 727, 97 L.Ed. 1351, rehearing denied 345 U.S. 971, 73 S.Ct. 1110, 97 L.Ed. 1388. For many years and in a variety of ways she has asserted that the Town of Suffield, The Suffield Savings Bank, and a "pool" of lawyers, brokers, and others have conspired to deprive her of her patrimony in the Miller's Beach farms in Suffield; but her vague charges, however vigorously asserted, have always lacked substance and substantiation. Judge Smith has dismissed her present complaint because she did not comply with his earlier order that she file a bond for costs and because the complaint fails to state a claim for relief. We agree with the dismissal and the grounds on which it was placed. The order for a moderate bond for costs was surely justified in view of the background of the prior litigation. And the ambiguous allegations here show no legal wrong or impairment of interstate commerce or injury to the public interest.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Klein v. Spear, Leeds & Kellogg
...we not to grant defendants security for costs. See Leighton v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 340 F.2d 859 (2d Cir. 1965); Miller v. Town of Suffield, 249 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1957). See also, Klein v. O'Donnell & Co. et al., 65 Civ. 3684 (S.D.N.Y. June 12, 1967 and August 18, 1967) (Judge Wyatt gra......
-
DeBlasio v. Rock
... ... Smith, 21 F.3d 496, 501 (2d Cir. 1994) (quoting Moffitt v. Town of Brookfield, 950 F.2d 880, 885 (2d Cir. 1991)). In order to prevail on a 1983 cause of action ... ...
-
Haberman v. Tobin, 1125
...Fund, Inc., 343 F.2d 565, 567 (2d Cir. 1965); Leighton v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 340 F.2d 859, 861 (2d Cir. 1965); Miller v. Town of Suffield, 249 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1957). In view of the repeated disregard by Haberman of Judge Sweet's orders, Judge Sweet acted within his discretion in dis......
-
Gay v. Chandra
...before trying to join a shareholder lawsuit, to post reasonable security for costs in the amount of $1,000); Miller v. Town of Suffield, 249 F.2d 16, 16-17 (2d Cir. 1957) (a plaintiff's "fantastic claims" justified an order requiring the plaintiff to post a "moderate" bond for costs); State......