Case Name: DUISBERG v. MARKHAM
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1945-05-25
Citations: 149 F.2d 812
Docket Number: No. 8730
Parties: DUISBERG v. MARKHAM.
Judges: Before DOBIE, GOODRICH and Mc-LAUGHLIN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 149
Pages: 812–812

Head Matter:
DUISBERG v. MARKHAM.
No. 8730.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued May 14, 1945.
Decided May 25, 1945.
See, also, 54 F.Supp. 365.
Jacob J. Rosenblum, New York City (Richard J. FitzMaurice, of Orange, N. J., and Garey, Desvernine & Garey, of New York City, on the brief), for appellant.
Irving J. Levy, Washington, D. C. (Herbert Wechsler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Thorn Lord, U. S. Atty. for District of New Jersey, of Newark, N. J., Harry Leroy Jones, Chief, Alien Property Litigation Unit, Louis P. Haffer, Loretta I. Martone, Attys. Alien Property Litigation Unit, War Division, Department of Justice, and John Ernest Roe, General Counsel to Alien Property Custodian, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.
Before DOBIE, GOODRICH and Mc-LAUGHLIN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is a civil action instituted by Walter H. Duisberg against the Alien Property Custodian. Duisberg has appealed to us from orders of the District Court fixing a definite date for trial, denying Duisberg a continuance, and dismissing the complaint with prejudice when Duisberg refused to proceed with the case after the continuance was denied.
It is well settled that such matters are peculiarly within the discretion of the District Court and the decisions of that Court should be disturbed on appeal only if there has been a clear abuse of discretion. We are convinced, after a careful inspection of the record, that there has been no abuse of discretion here.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.