Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P alleged an order agreement made with her father that in exchange for P's promise to care for and support her mother, P's father had agreed not to make a will, thereby assuring P of an intestate share of the father's estate. P alleged that she fully performed her obligations under the oral agreement, but that the father had breached the oral contract and had devised his property to D, his second wife, and executrix. P's complaint sought recovery of what would have been her intestate share. D moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the oral agreement was violative of the state statute of frauds. The District Court dismissed P's for failure to state a claim upon which relief might be granted. The next day on December 20, 1960, P filed motions to vacate the judgment and to amend the complaint to assert a right of recovery in quantum meruit for the performance of the obligations which were the consideration for the assertedly unenforceable oral contract. On January 17, 1961, P filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of December 19, 1960. On January 23, 1961, the Court denied P's motions to vacate the judgment and to amend the complaint. On January 26, 1961, P filed a notice of appeal from the denial of the motions. The Court of Appeals of its own accord dismissed the appeal insofar as taken from the District Court judgment of December 19, 1960, and affirmed the orders of the District Court entered January 23, 1961. The Court of Appeals held that in the absence of a specific designation of the provision of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under which the December 20, 1960, motion to vacate was filed, the motion would be treated as filed pursuant to Rule 59 (e), rather than under Rule 60 (b). Under Rule 73 a motion under Rule 59 suspends the running of time within which an appeal may be perfected, the first notice of appeal was treated as premature in view of the then pending motion to vacate and of no effect. The Court of Appeals held the second notice of appeal, filed January 26, 1961, ineffective to review the December 19, 1960, judgment dismissing the complaint because the notice failed to specify that the appeal was being taken from that judgment as well as from the orders denying the motions. The Court of Appeals held that there was nothing in the record to show the circumstances which were before the District Court for consideration in ruling on those motions; consequently, it regarded itself as precluded from finding any abuse of discretion in the refusal of the court below to allow the amendment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co