Case Name: Larry T. GURLEY, Appellant, v. Charles E. WILSON, Secretary of Defense, et al., Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1956-05-31
Citations: 239 F.2d 957
Docket Number: No. 12985
Parties: Larry T. GURLEY, Appellant, v. Charles E. WILSON, Secretary of Defense, et al., Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 239
Pages: 957–959

Head Matter:
Larry T. GURLEY, Appellant, v. Charles E. WILSON, Secretary of Defense, et al., Appellees.
No. 12985.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued May 18, 1956.
Decided May 31, 1956.
Petition for Rehearing Denied Nov. 21, 1956.
Mr. Robert L. Ackerly, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Milton Eisenberg, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., at the time brief was filed, ■and Lewis Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellees. Mr. •Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., also entered ■an appearance for appellees.
Before PRETTYMAN, WILBUR K. iMILLER and DANAHER, Circuit ■Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
That laches may bar appellant's relief is not to be doubted, Grasse v. Snyder, 1951, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 352, 192 F.2d 35, indeed the doctrine may be applicable here. But the record lacks findings as to the particulars upon which the court relied when appellees' motion for summary judgment was granted on that ground.
The appellant had been discharged from Government employ for failure to pay to a Government dispensary a charge of $2 which a personnel officer decided constituted a just debt. Appellant clearly alleged that he had been denied a hearing on the merits of his defense to the alleged debt, although Army Orders "T", here invoked against him, contemplates discharge for nonpayment only if the indebtedness has been contracted and remains unpaid "without sufficient excuse or reason." Appellees' motion must be taken to have admitted the allegations of the complaint. Accordingly, there would seem to remain a genuine issue as to a material fact.
Reversed.
Also relied upon in Carter v. Forrestal, 1949, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 53, 54, 175 F.2d 364, 365, certiorari denied 1949, 338 U.S. 832, 70 S.Ct. 47, 94 L.Ed. 507.