Court Opinion

ID: 9680558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:33:44.857575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:29.262657
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
Appellants now contend that the trial court abused his discretion in refusing to permit the filing of an amended pleading the day before the date for hearing the motion for summary judgment.
A previous suit was filed by appellants against appellees on November 7, 1963, just one hour before a conference was to be held between Mr. Stautz and the president of Baruch-Foster regarding the sale of the subject property. Appellants knew of this conference and were denied admission to it. In such suit a lis pendens was filed. This had the effect of blocking the negotiations for sale of the property. Baruch-Foster was not made a party to such suit.
In such suit appellants sought to delay the taking of appellant Lyles’ depositions. When the case was called for trial, they sought a continuance, which was denied. They then took a non-suit, and seventeen minutes later refiled their suit. Baruch-Foster was not made a party to this suit. Only in the amended petition filed March 11, 1964, the day before the date for hearing the motion for summary judgment, was Baruch-Foster made a party. If such pleading had not been stricken by the Court, further delay in the trial of this cause would have ensued.
Other tactics of a dilatory nature are disclosed by the record as having been employed by appellants to delay the trial of this case. We conclude from the facts which we have recited that no abuse of discretion by the trial court in striking the Amended Petition is shown.
The motion is overruled.
Motion overruled.