Court Opinion

ID: 8861592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 17:50:18.967819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:05:50.481618
License: Public Domain

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.
If in no other way than by a counterclaim in this action could the government have the question determined whether or not it is entitled to recover anything from the plaintiff, the former marshal of this district, I should be inclined to allow the amendment. But, so far as I can discover, there is no obstacle to an independent action to recover whatever may be due the government, and no authorities are presented sustaining the proposition that counterclaim is the only relief. This cause has been repeatedly on the day calendar for trial, and plaintiff has always been ready for trial. The limit of all reasonable continuance on defendant’s request was passed long since, and the case set peremptorily for the 1st day of the April term. To introduce a new cause of action in favor of defendant at this late stage, probably necessitating a further adjournment, since plaintiff’s sole witness as to the transactions out of which counterclaim arises is now in California, would be a denial of justice. The issues now raised in the cause should be tried and disposed of without further delay. Any other controversies between the parties can be disposed of in some other action.