HomeMy WebLinkAbout1075 the court ordered appellants to answer certain interrogatories within
ten days. As might be expected from a perusal ot this record, that
time came and went without performance. But appellants obtained a
etipulation from eppetlee for a further extension of time to June 15,
= 1973. In return #or appellee's agreement to the extension of time~
tC~e appellants stipulated that if they did not comply w ith the court's _
order of April 23, 1973, by June 15, 1973, their answers would be
stricken and a defautt would be entered wittiout notice. TYUe to form,
appellants fetled to file their answers to the tnterrogatories in ~
question by June 15th. On June 18, 1973, appetlants filed a motion ~
for an extens ton of tirne to August I, 1973~ on the ground that
J. W. Dickson was out of the counrry. Counsel for appetlants also
f~le~ w~r he t~~'tne~ "F+~r_cher Sugnlemental Answers to Interrogatories"
in which he purported to answer the interrogatories in question, However,
tn his june 18th motion counset states unequivocally that he is not abie
to fully answer said interrogatories.
Thus, it seems clear that the appeliants faited tv act in ac- -
cordance w~th their stipulation they did not comply with the court`a
~4 order of April 23, 1973. The answers ultimately filed by appellants'
~ -
~ counsel were incomptete by his own admission, and thus under Rule
1. 3$Q (a) (3), RCP, are to be treated as no answer. It is worthy of
note, since it fits appellante' general pattern of conduct in this case,
that thaugh appellants' motion of June 18th asks for an extension of time
to August 1 to property answer the interrogatories, said motion was
never aet for hearing and August lst came and went without any effort
on tt~e record toward compliance.
~
~ Accordingty, the entry of the order of August 7, 1973 striking
~
~ -
appetlants' answers and entering a default was not only agreed to by
appellants in their stiputation but was entirely warranted.
r
2. ~
so~ 243 ~1076
_ _ . . . . _ _ _ - - - _ _ _
Y:._
w~~
-a