Wheeler v. West India SS Co., 250
| Decision Date | 18 June 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 250,Docket 22667.,250 |
| Parties | WHEELER v. WEST INDIA S. S. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
George J. Engelman, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.
Haight, Deming, Gardner, Poor & Havens, New York City, J. Ward O'Neill and John C. Mundt, Jr., New York City, of counsel, for defendant-appellee.
Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CHASE and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
The judgment vacating the verdict of the jury and directing a verdict in favor of the defendant is affirmed on the opinion of the District Court, 103 F.Supp. 631.
The plaintiff also appeals from an order of April 6, 1951, granting the defendant's motion to vacate the plaintiff's notice to amend his complaint to add a new claim for alleged failure promptly to repatriate the plaintiff and to provide him with proper medical and hospital care. A renewal at the trial of the plaintiff's motion to amend was also denied. The refusal to permit the addition of a third claim more than three years after the complaint was filed was clearly justified on the ground of laches and we do not think that there was any abuse of discretion. See 3 Moore, Federal Practice p. 835 (2d ed.).
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dixon v. Grace Lines, Inc.
...v. Isthmian Lines, Inc., Supra, 218 F.Supp. at p. 237; Wheeler v. West India S.S. Co., 103 F.Supp. 631, 634 (S.D.N.Y.1951), aff'd 205 F.2d 354 (2nd Cir. 1953), cert. denied 346 U.S. 889, 74 S.Ct. 141, 98 L.Ed. 393 (1953).) More to the point of the instant case, a shipowner has no duty to fu......
-
Reborn Enterprises, Inc. v. Fine Child, Inc.
...in this case. Lack of diligence is reason enough for this conclusion. See Oreck Corp., 639 F.2d at 81; Wheeler v. West India S.S. Co., 205 F.2d 354, 354 (2d Cir.1953) (per curiam); Kirby v. P.R. Mallory & Co., 489 F.2d 904, 912 (7th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 911, 94 S.Ct. 2610, 41 L......
-
King & King Enterprises v. Champlin Petroleum Co.
...L.Ed.2d 435 (1965). It is clear that lack of diligence is reason for refusing to permit amendment. So holding is Wheeler v. West India S.S. Co., 205 F.2d 354 (2 Cir., 1953), a decision concurred in by the draftsmen of the Federal Rules. Where there has been such lack of diligence, the burde......
-
Szopko v. Kinsman Marine Transit Co., Docket No. 74646
...other cases have so stated in dicta. See, e.g., Wheeler v. West India S.S. Co., 103 F.Supp. 631 (S.D.N.Y., 1951), aff'd 205 F.2d 354 (C.A.2, 1953), cert. den. 346 U.S. 889, 74 S.Ct. 141, 98 L.Ed. 393 (1953); Broussard v. Marine Transport Lines, Inc., 369 F.Supp. 103 (E.D.Tex., 1974); Dangov......