Case ID: vt_131/html/0148-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Marvin Hardy v. Howard E. Mobbs Pearley Hardy v. Howard E. Mobbs
    [303 A.2d 156]
    No. 69-72
    70-72
    Present: Shangraw, C.J., Barney, Smith, Keyser and Daley, JJ.
    Opinion Filed February 15, 1973
    
      Wool, Agel, Murdoch & Kittell, Burlington, for Plaintiffs.
    
      Dewitt E. Mead, Esq., of Dinse, Allen & Erdmann, Burlington, for Defendant.
   Per Curiam.

This action was dismissed under the authority of Rule 25(a)(1) of V.R.C.P.

Since no application for relief from the application of the above rule was made under V.R.C.P. 6(b), the dismissal was proper. See 7A C. Wright and A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil Rule 25(a) (1972).

Affirmed.