Donald R. Billings v. Sabine River & Northern Railroad Company

Fifth Circuit

Donald R. Billings v. Sabine River & Northern Railroad Company

409 F.2d 988, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12803

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 15, 1969

Docket26807_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 409 F.2d 988 (Donald R. Billings v. Sabine River & Northern Railroad Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Donald R. Billings v. Sabine River & Northern Railroad Company, 409 F.2d 988, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12803 (5th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The appellants were plaintiffs in the district court. On July 8, 1968 the district court entered a final appealable order dismissing the cause. No findings of fact and conclusions of law were then filed. None were required. On August 15 findings and conclusions were filed. On September 3 the appellants filed a notice of appeal. On October 21 the appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it was not timely filed. On October 25 the district court on application of the appellants entered an order reciting that the court had not intended to enter its order of July 8 and that the court did intend that the order should be entered and become effective on A-ugust 15, the date when the findings and conclusions were filed. On the same date the district court entered an order of dismissal substantially the same as that which had been entered on July 8. On November 1 the appellants filed a motion in this Court for leave to file the so-called corrected judgment. On November 12 this Court entered an order dismissing the appeal from the order of July 8 on the ground that the notice of appeal was filed after the expiration of the time permitted for the filing of such notice.

The order of July 8, 1968 effected a final disposition of the cause in the district court. The intention of the court that the entry of the final order should be deferred until findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed and the subsequent orders do not supersede or vacate the order of July 8, 1968, from which an untimely appeal was attempted. It might be noted that no effort has been made to appeal from the subsequent orders of the court and we need not determine whether under the circumstances an appeal would lie from any of such orders. The judgment of dismissal was correct and the motion to file the so-called corrected judgment is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The appellants were plaintiffs in the district court. On July 8, 1968 the district court entered a final appealable order dismissing the cause. No findings of fact and conclusions of law were then filed. None were required. On August 15 findings and conclusions were filed. On September 3 the appellants filed a notice of appeal. On October 21 the appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it was not timely filed. On October 25 the district court on application of the appellants entered an order reciting that the court had not intended to enter its order of July 8 and that the court did intend that the order should be entered and become effective on A-ugust 15, the date when the findings and conclusions were filed. On the same date the district court entered an order of dismissal substantially the same as that which had been entered on July 8. On November 1 the appellants filed a motion in this Court for leave to file the so-called corrected judgment. On November 12 this Court entered an order dismissing the appeal from the order of July 8 on the ground that the notice of appeal was filed after the expiration of the time permitted for the filing of such notice.

The order of July 8, 1968 effected a final disposition of the cause in the district court. The intention of the court that the entry of the final order should be deferred until findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed and the subsequent orders do not supersede or vacate the order of July 8, 1968, from which an untimely appeal was attempted. It might be noted that no effort has been made to appeal from the subsequent orders of the court and we need not determine whether under the circumstances an appeal would lie from any of such orders. The judgment of dismissal was correct and the motion to file the so-called corrected judgment is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

409 F.2d 988, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donald-r-billings-v-sabine-river-northern-railroad-company-ca5-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack