TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Stoddard v. Morrin

Stoddard v. Morrin, 8 F.R.D. 375 (D.D.C. 1942)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, District of Columbia · Federal District Courts
Decided
April 2, 1942
Docket
No. C. A. 14781
Judges
Bailey
Citations
8 F.R.D. 3751942 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1854

Opinion of the Court — Bailey

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

BAILEY, Justice.

Certain of the defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint upon the grounds:

1. That the complaint fails to state a cause of action; 2, that the same claim has been adjudicated in another action brought in this court; and 3, that in the same action judgment was entered in favor of the defendants. An affidavit supporting these facts has been filed as a part of the motion.

The question to be determined as to the 2nd and 3rd grounds of the motion is whether a motion to dismiss based on grounds not appearing on the complaint will lie. Rule 12(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., provides that six classes of defenses may be made by motion. None of the first five of these involve the question here presented. The sixth ground upon which a motion may be based is: “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Some courts have held that although nothing may appear on the face of the complaint which shows that the cause of action is barred by res judicata, that fact may be shown by affidavit and upon that being done a motion to dismiss will lie. I do not agree with this view. A complaint may state a claim upon which relief can be granted. If it does not a motion to dismiss will lie. To hold otherwise would permit any defense to be raised by affidavit as a basis for a motion. I do think that if a complaint shows on its face that the cause of action is barred by laches or the statute of limitations a motion to dismiss will lie, and this is in accordance with the practice under the old equity rules, but the present rules in my opinion require that the defense of res judicata should be raised “in the responsive pleading.”

The motion to dismiss should be overruled.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1963: 11964: 11967: 219632026peak 1967 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Rambur v. Diehl Lumber Company394 P.2d 745 (Mont. 1964)
  2. Abramson v. Grady234 A.2d 174 (D.C. 1967)
  3. Johnson v. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co.34 F.R.D. 140 (W.D. Pa. 1963)
  4. Williams v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad274 F. Supp. 216 (D.S.C. 1967)

Most recent

  1. Abramson v. Grady234 A.2d 174 (D.C. 1967)
  2. Williams v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad274 F. Supp. 216 (D.S.C. 1967)
  3. Rambur v. Diehl Lumber Company394 P.2d 745 (Mont. 1964)
  4. Johnson v. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co.34 F.R.D. 140 (W.D. Pa. 1963)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list