U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1957

Mayfair Extension, Inc. v. Warren E. Magee

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided February 21, 1957 · Bazelon, Fahy, Bas-Tian

241 F.2d 453; 100 U.S. App. D.C. 48; 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3480 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Robert H. McNeill, Washington, í). C., for appellant., Mr. William J. Hughes, Jr., Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

43 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Cavalier Label Co. v. S. S. Lilika (District Court, S.D. New York 1976)
Alaska Truck Transport, Inc. v. Berman Packing Co. (Alaska 1970)
Morgan v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance (District Court, W.D. Louisiana 1967)
Rhodes v. Houston (United States District Court, Nebraska 1966)
Margaret S. MacLeod and Norman M. MacLeod v. D. C. Transit System, Inc. (D.C. Cir. 1960)
Delzona Corporation v. Sacks (3d Cir. 1959)
Delzona Corp. v. Sacks (3d Cir. 1959)
Carvajal v. Drug Enforcement Administration (District Court, District of Columbia 2012)
Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Department of Homeland Security (District Court, District of Columbia 2011)
Orner v. Liu (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2011)
Green v. American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (Afl-Cio) (District Court, District of Columbia 2011)
Electronic Privacy Information Center v. the United States Deptment of Homeland Security (District Court, District of Columbia 2011)
Hoffman v. District of Columbia (District Court, District of Columbia 2010)
Washington v. District of Columbia (District Court, District of Columbia 2010)
Ramos v. United States Department of Justice (District Court, District of Columbia 2010)
McGee v. District of Columbia (District Court, District of Columbia 2010)
Hoffman v. Lanier (District Court, District of Columbia 2010)
McGee v. District of Columbia (District Court, District of Columbia 2010)
Washington v. District of Columbia (District Court, District of Columbia 2010)
Ramos v. Department of Justice (District Court, District of Columbia 2010)
In re Petition of Reid (District Court, District of Columbia 2009)
Laster v. District of Columbia (District Court, District of Columbia 2009)
Laster v. District of Columbia (District Court, District of Columbia 2009)
In re: Petition of Lanai Reid (District Court, District of Columbia 2009)
Bestor v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (District Court, District of Columbia 2008)

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from the District Court’s denial of appellant corporation’s motion, under Rules 55 and 60, Fed.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C. to vacate the default judgment entered in appellee’s suit on two promissory notes and for attorney’s fees.

The suit was filed on March 30, 1954, when appellee was general counsel and secretary of appellant. Service was made the next day on appellant’s executive vice president, Cassell. According to affidavits in support of the motion to vacate, Cassell and appellee were denied re-election at a Board of Directors meeting on April 16, 1954, and they withdrew from the meeting without mentioning the suit and the service upon CasselL Appellee obtained judgment by default on April 26,1954.

It appears from Cassell’s affidavit that one Walker, who was employed as a property manager by appellant corporation after April 16, 1954, knew of the suit and service of process before the entry of the default judgment. Walker’s affidavit, executed a week or so after Cas-sell’s was filed, is completely silent as to whether he had such knowledge or, if so, conveyed it to any officer or director. There is no dispute, however, that appellant was fully advised of the judgment no later than May 7, 1954. The motion to vacate was not filed until April 25, 1955 — almost a year later.

*454 Appellant says its motion is premised on a breach of trust by attorney against client and therefore falls within Rule 60(b) (3), Fed.R.Civ.P. Under this rule a default judgment may be set aside for “fraud * * *, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party.” Appellant argues that a motion to vacate for such reason may be brought any time within one year. But the rule requires that “The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and [when based upon Rule 60 (b^ than one year after the [default] judgment * * *.” Thus necessary that the motic in one year, but also within a reasonable time within the one-year period. Upon the record before us, the latter requirement The District Court was, therefore, correct in denying the motipn. (3)] not more it was not only on be filed with-that it be filed

Affirmed.

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