Savage v. Hadlock, 13994
| Decision Date | 10 August 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 13994,13995.,13994 |
| Citation | 296 F.2d 417 |
| Parties | John A. SAVAGE and Eliza T. Savage, Appellants, v. Ivan K. HADLOCK et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Kenneth D. Wood, Washington, D. C., argued the motion for leave to file petition for rehearing for appellants.
Mr. John J. Donnelly, Washington, D. C., argued in opposition to appellants' motion for leave to file petition for rehearing for appellees.
Before EDGERTON, PRETTYMAN and DANAHER, Circuit Judges.
This matter is before us on a motion by appellant Savage for permission to file a petition for rehearing.
Savage was the administrator of the estate of a decedent. He was sued in 1951 by the heirs at law and next of kin (Hadlock and Helmbold) for alleged fraud. The plaintiffs demanded an accounting. The District Court referred the matter to its Auditor. The Auditor computed the cost of the audit to be about $800 and billed Hadlock and Helmbold for half of that amount and Savage for the other half. Savage responded that a defendant is not chargeable for an advance on the costs of an accounting sought by a plaintiff. Upon the Auditor's report to the District Court concerning this response, the plaintiffs moved that all of Savage's pleadings be stricken and that judgment against him be entered. After argument, the court, on July 28, 1954, granted the motion, but with this proviso: "provided, however, that if defendant, within five days from the date of this Order shall deposit with the Auditor his share of said indemnity in the amount of $437.50, then, in that event, plaintiffs' motion to strike defendant's answer and all pleadings filed in this cause by defendant, shall stand denied."
This order has been the focal point of Savage's persistent complaint ever since. Within the five days he gave the Auditor a check for the $437.50. At the same time he wrote and sent a letter to the District Judge and to the Auditor in somewhat less than temperate language, saying that unless they returned his money he would sue them in Municipal Court.1 The Auditor acknowledged the letter and said he would not deposit the check, so that plaintiffs might submit to the court the question whether the check, with the letter, constituted compliance with the court's order. Plaintiffs filed a motion for the taking of ex parte proof on the amount of damages. They asserted non-compliance by Savage with the order of July 28th and that "the judgment therein granted plaintiffs stands." Savage answered that he had complied with the court's order of July 28th. Presented with this clear issue the District Court, on October 12, 1954, without findings or opinion, granted the plaintiffs' motion.
The hearing thus ordered was had, limited, over Savage's protests, to evidence upon the amount of damages. The court, on October 29, 1954, entered judgment for Hadlock, et al., in the amount of $17,548.91. The order awarding the judgment was titled "Order Carrying into Effect Final Judgment of July 28, 1954," and was entered "Under the Judgment of July 28, 1954." The dollar judgment of October 29, 1954, was formally entered.
Savage noted an appeal from the October judgment. He docketed the appeal in this court, but he took no further steps to perfect it by filing the record. Appellees (Hadlock and Helmbold) moved to dismiss. Savage moved for an extension of time to file the record and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On March 22, 1955, this court granted the motion to dismiss and denied Savage's motions.
Subsequently, in 1956, Hadlock and Helmbold filed a suit, in aid of execution of the October, 1954, judgment, to set aside certain deeds to realty executed by Savage. Savage raised the question about the validity of the October judgment and the underlying July 28th order. Trial was had, and the District Court entered judgment for the plaintiffs. Savage appealed in forma pauperis. This court limited the issues but included as one issue "Validity of the District Court order of July 28, 1954, and the judgment based thereon, having regard to the action of this Court in dismissing the appeal taken therefrom." The case was briefed and argued. Savage, in his statement of the case, recited the facts which we have above outlined concerning the events surrounding the July 28th order and the October judgment. In his statement of points he included the statement that the July order was not a default judgment and that the trial court erred in construing it to be a default judgment. He also made the point that the judgment of October 29th was void because based upon an invalid construction of the July order. This court affirmed the judgment setting aside the deeds. The realty in question was subsequently sold by a court-appointed t...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheppard v. Dist. of D.C., Civil Action No. 10–0834 (RMU).
...that the court's refusal to address an argument constitutes an implicit rejection of those arguments); see also Savage v. Hadlock, 296 F.2d 417, 419 (D.C.Cir.1961) (concluding that the district court's ruling in favor of the plaintiff constituted an “implicit rejection” of the defendant's a......
-
Vicaretti v. Henderson
...City Housing Authority, 438 F.2d 914 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 840, 92 S.Ct. 132, 30 L.Ed.2d 73 (1971); Savage v. Hadlock, 296 F.2d 417 (D.C.Cir.1961); see also Reese v. Ricketts, 534 F.2d 1180 (5th Cir. 1976) (in forma pauperis appeal and certificate of probable cause limited); B......
-
Sheppard v. Dist. Of D.C.
...that the court's refusal to address an argument constitutes an implicit rejection of those arguments); see also Savage v. Hadlock, 296 F.2d 417, 419 (D.C. Cir. 1961) (concluding that the district court's ruling in favor of the plaintiff constituted an "implicit rejection" of the defendant's......
- Williams v. Zuckert