Eugene Ross Dockery and L. W. Bulman, D/B/A B & D Antique Shop v. The Travelers Company of Hartford, Connecticut, Eugene Ross Dockery and L. W. Bulman, D/B/A B & D Antique Shop v. National Surety Corporation

349 F.2d 1017, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4882
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJuly 15, 1965
Docket22264
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 349 F.2d 1017 (Eugene Ross Dockery and L. W. Bulman, D/B/A B & D Antique Shop v. The Travelers Company of Hartford, Connecticut, Eugene Ross Dockery and L. W. Bulman, D/B/A B & D Antique Shop v. National Surety Corporation) 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
Eugene Ross Dockery and L. W. Bulman, D/B/A B & D Antique Shop v. The Travelers Company of Hartford, Connecticut, Eugene Ross Dockery and L. W. Bulman, D/B/A B & D Antique Shop v. National Surety Corporation, 349 F.2d 1017, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4882 (5th Cir. 1965).

Opinion

349 F.2d 1017

Eugene Ross DOCKERY and L. W. Bulman, d/b/a B & D Antique
Shop, Appellants,
v.
The TRAVELERS COMPANY OF HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, Appellee.
Eugene Ross DOCKERY and L. W. Bulman, d/b/a B & D Antique
Shop, Appellants,
v.
NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 22263, 22264.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

July 15, 1965.

Edward J. Henning, Atlanta, Ga., for appellants.

D. Wright Mitchell, Dalton, Ga., Robert Edward Surles, Summerville, Ga., for appellee.

Before HUTCHESON, RIVES and BELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In these cases the district court entered orders of dismissal on September 4, 1964. On September 11, 1964, the plaintiffs filed timely motions to set aside the orders of dismissal and reinstate the case. Those motions were denied by the district court on October 13, 1964. The plaintiffs filed motions to reconsider on October 22, 1964, based on substantially the same grounds as urged in the earlier motions which had been denied on October 13, 1964. On November 12, 1964, the district court denied the motions to reconsider. Notices of appeal were filed on November 18, 1964.

Under Rule 73(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is clear that the first motions filed by the plaintiffs terminated the running of the time for appeal. Upon entry of orders disposing of those motions, the second motions, being motions to reconsider such orders, did not again terminate the running of the time for appeal. A fair reading of Rule 73(a) necessitates that result, and the courts are in accord. Marten v. Hess, 6 Cir. 1949, 176 F.2d 834; Randolph v. Randolph, 1952, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 170, 198 F.2d 956; Deena Products Co. v. United Brick & Clay Workers, 6 Cir. 1952, 195 F.2d 612; Terrasi v. South Atlantic Lines, 2 Cir. 1955, 226 F.2d 823; Kelly v. Pennsylvania R.R., 3 Cir. 1955, 228 F.2d 727; Stiller v. Squeeze-A-Purse Corp., 6 Cir. 1958, 251 F.2d 561; Shotkin v. Weksler, 5 Cir. 1958, 254 F.2d 596; Yates v. Behrend, 1960, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 56, 280 F.2d 64.

The appeals are dismissed for failure to file timely notices of appeal.

Appeals dismissed.

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

Related

Annette Brown v. United Insurance Company of America
807 F.2d 1239 (Fifth Circuit, 1987)
Sunshine Homes, Inc. v. Newton
443 So. 2d 921 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1983)
United States v. Albert James Marsh
700 F.2d 1322 (Tenth Circuit, 1983)
Wilger v. Department of Pensions and Security
343 So. 2d 529 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
349 F.2d 1017, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eugene-ross-dockery-and-l-w-bulman-dba-b-d-antique-shop-v-the-ca5-1965.