U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1962

Dodd v. Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided September 24, 1962

308 F.2d 673; 6 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 514 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Ernest S. Brown and Jack I. Mc-Auliffe, Reno, Nev., for appellant., T. David Horton, Francis T. Cornish, Berkeley, Cal., Roscoe H. Wilkes, Pioche, Nev., and Harold M. Morse, Las Vegas, Nev., for appellee Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc., Sullivan, Roche, Johnson & Farraher, San Francisco, Cal., and Alvin N. Wart-man, Las Vegas, Nev., for appellee Helen Dolman., William J. Forman, Reno, Nev., George H. Johnston and Willard P. Norberg, San Francisco, Cal., Woodbum, Forman, Wedge, Blakey & Folsom, Reno, Nev., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Philadelphia, Pa., and Ackerman, Johnston, Johnston & Mathews, San Francisco, Cal., for ap-pellee Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Norman Dodd v. Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc. (9th Cir. 1962)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Appellants Norman Dodd and Aaron M. Sargent, two of three trustees named in a joint venture agreement with Ap-pellee Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc., have appealed to this Court from an Order of the trial court denying their motion to be substituted as counter-claimants in this litigation.

In reaching our decision here we are assuming, without deciding, that the order denying the motion for substitution is appealable.

The substitution or joinder of Appellants as counterclaimants rested in the discretion of the district court and was not mandatory. Rule 25(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.; Virginia Land Co. v. Miami Shipbuilding Corp., 201 F.2d 506 (5th Cir. 1953); Sun-Maid Raisin Growers of California v. California Packing Corporation, 273 F.2d 282 (9th Cir. 1959).

On an examination of the record we are satisfied that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion of Appellants.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.