Rose Barge Line, Inc. v. Hicks, 19706.
| Decision Date | 13 January 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 19706.,19706. |
| Citation | 421 F.2d 163 |
| Parties | ROSE BARGE LINE, INC., Appellant, v. William (Billy) HICKS, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Douglas C. Wynn, Greenville, Miss., for appellant.
D. A. Clarke, McGehee, Ark., and William H. Drew, Lake Village, Ark., for appellee.
Before GIBSON, LAY and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
In this diversity case plaintiff, Rose Barge Line, Inc., seeks to recover on an oral contract for the sale of damaged corn delivered to the defendant, William (Billy) Hicks, at Greenville, Mississippi.
The corn was damaged while in transit on the plaintiff's barge near St. Louis, Missouri. The oral contract of sale was made in St. Louis, Missouri. It provided that the defendant would purchase of the plaintiff 28,600 bushels of the damaged grain for $18,590.00 with delivery to be made at Greenville, Mississippi. Such delivery was made July 13, 1964, but apparently the defendant failed to pay for the grain. Plaintiff waited until August 27, 1968 to file suit against the defendant, who was at that time a resident of the State of Arkansas.
The trial court sustained a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., on the ground that the cause of action was barred by the applicable Arkansas statute of limitations. We affirm.
Plaintiff's main contention is that the trial court erred in applying the Arkansas statute of limitations rather than either the Missouri or Mississippi statute of limitations.1 Plaintiff also complains about insufficient notice under Federal Rule 6(d), Fed.R.Civ.P., and questions the validity of Local Rule 8(a) of the Eastern District of Arkansas, which provides that unless otherwise ordered, motions shall be submitted and determined upon the record and supporting memoranda, without oral argument.
Guaranty Trust Company v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 65 S.Ct. 1464, 89 L. Ed. 2079, 160 A.L.R. 1231 (1945), held that under the Erie doctrine a federal court in diversity cases must apply the state statute of limitations in an action to recover upon a state created right. In diversity cases containing conflicts of law issues the federal court must follow the conflicts rules prevailing in the forum state. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941). The Arkansas choice of law rule as to the application of the statute of limitations is that the law of the forum controls. Pierce v. Stirling, 225 Ark. 108, 279 S. W.2d 840, 842 (1955). This is dispositive of the limitations issue and the Arkansas statute of limitations controls.
The Eastern District of Arkansas, by its Local Rule 8, has dispensed with all hearings on motions unless otherwise ordered. This local rule is expressly permitted by and complementary to Rule 78, Fed.R.Civ.P., which in pertinent part, states:
"To expedite its business, the court may make provision by rule or order for the submission and determination of motions without oral hearing upon brief written statements of reasons in support and opposition."
Adoption of the local rule dispensing with hearings makes irrelevant and meaningless the notice of hearing required by Rule 6(d), Fed.R.Civ.P., unless the District Court expressly orders a hearing on a motion.
In this case the defendant did not give any notice of hearing as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Levine v. Torvik
...least five days before it is decided by the court, although the local rule trumps Rule 6(d)'s notice provisions. Rose Barge Line, Inc. v. Hicks, 421 F.2d 163, 164 (8th Cir.1970). Application of Rule 6(d) has been reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard, and a court may shorten the p......
-
Tanner v. Presidents-First Lady Spa, Inc.
...274 (10th Cir. 1955); Hyatt Chalet Motels, Inc. v. Carpenters Local 1065, 430 F.2d 1119, 1120 (9th Cir. 1970); Rose Barge Line, Inc. v. Hicks, 421 F.2d 163 (8th Cir. 1970); Schaefer v. United States, 288 F.Supp. 93 (E.D.Mo.1968); 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 12......
-
Triplett v. Azordegan
...face of the pleadings. See Wilburn v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of St. Louis, 492 F.2d 1288 (8th Cir. 1974); cf. Rose Barge Line Inc. v. Hicks, 421 F.2d 163 (8th Cir. 1970); Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § Here defendants raise the statute of limitations in a resi......
-
Cowan v. Rosebud Sioux Tribe
...due process. See, Morrow v. Topping, 437 F.2d 1155 (9th Cir. 1971). See also, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78; Rose Barge Line, Inc. v. Hicks, 421 F.2d 163 (8th Cir. 1970). Plaintiffs have raised two additional claims before this Court. The first is that the Tribal Court lacked jurisdict......