Court Opinion

ID: 9650814
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:52:41.000369+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:26.276647
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
The complaint in this suit stated that the plaintiffs, the present appellees, “were among those persons denominated as parties upon whom service of process was had * * * ” jn Champ’s suit. Their brief on this appeal argues only that the Financial Responsibility Act, D.C.Code 1940, § 40— 401 et seq., is limited to owners and operators of cars, and that Champ had no standing to intervene in this suit. It contains no suggestion that any of appellees were not properly served, or were not properly before the court, in Champ’s suit. In a petition for rehearing, appellees’ counsel now raises that contention.
Appellees brought the present suit for the purpose of preventing the enforcement of Champ’s judgment by suspension of their licenses. If they had alleged in the District' Court, in this suit, that some of appellees were not properly before the court in Champ’s suit, and were therefore not bound by her judgment, such parties *603would have been entitled to try that issue, But they pitched their case on a wholly different theory. They cannot be permitted to change the issues in this court. But we say this without prejudice to the right of the District Court, if it deems that justice so requires, to permit appellees to amend their complaint. Cf. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 15(a), 28 U.S. C.A. following section 723c. Our previous judgment will be vacated and judgment entered in conformity with this opinion.