Enger Arthur Eklund v. Miriam Del Carmen Mora, a Minor by Next Friend, Antonia Judith Mora
Egner Arthur EKLUND, Appellant, v. Miriam Del Carmen MORA, a Minor by Next Friend, Antonia Judith Mora, Appellee
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
Appellant raises only one point on this appeal, whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to vacate judgment.
1
The basis of the motion was that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter because appellee, a resident of the Republic of Panama, sought to bring her action under a statute which is limited to residents of the Canal Zone. The statute is set out in pertinent part in the margin.
2
Appellee filed her original complaint under subdivision (a) (1).
The district court ruled that appellant’s motion was untimely, coming at the end of the trial and after judgment, and granted appellee leave to amend the complaint to correct the jurisdictional flaw.
3
While we agree with appellant that the motion was not untimely, see C. Wright, Federal Courts § 7, at 14-16 (1963), we affirm the ruling of the district court. Upon leave of the court a party may amend defective allegations of jurisdiction, even after judgment has been entered or an appeal taken. Finn v. American Fire & Casualty Co., 207 F.2d 113 (5th Cir. 1953); 28 U.S.C.A. § 1653 ; Fed.R.Civ.P. 15. In Finn this court held that where a first trial was free from error apart from a jurisdictional matter, a new trial was not mandatory and judgment could be entered on the original verdict after the correction of the jurisdictional flaw by the dismissal of a non-diverse defendant.
The judgment of the district court is Affirmed.
1
. Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, this ease has been put on the summary calendar for disposition without oral argument. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 804 ; Floyd v. Resor, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 714 .
2
. Canal Zone Code, tit. 8, § 461:
“(a) An action pursuant to this sub-chapter may be brought by:
(1) a female resident of the Canal Zone who has delivered an illegitimate child or who is pregnant with a child which, if born alive, would be illegitimate ; or (2) an illegitimate child or, if the illegitimate child is a minor or otherwise incompetent, his next friend. * * * ”
3
. Subdivision (a) (2) allows a suit by the child or his next friend, if the child is a minor. It is not limited to residents of the Canal Zone.
See supra note 1. Ap-pellee was allowed to amend her complaint to make the suit into an action by her as next friend for the child.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- James B. Stanley v. Central Intelligence Agency United States Department of Defense U.S. Army
- Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company v. Pargas, Inc. v. Union Tank Car Co., Third Party
- Norman T. Strain, D/B/A Trans Texas Tire v. Harrelson Rubber Company
- Chancery Clerk of Chickasaw County, Mississippi v. Robert Wallace
- Blair Riggs v. Island Creek Coal Company
- Travelers Insurance v. Broadway West Street Associates
Most recent
- Thomas M. Utterback v. Craig B. Morris
- Travelers Insurance v. Broadway West Street Associates
- Norman T. Strain, D/B/A Trans Texas Tire v. Harrelson Rubber Company
- Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company v. Pargas, Inc. v. Union Tank Car Co., Third Party
- Chancery Clerk of Chickasaw County, Mississippi v. Robert Wallace
- James B. Stanley v. Central Intelligence Agency United States Department of Defense U.S. Army
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.