Hunt v. United States

Tenth Circuit

Hunt v. United States

53 F.2d 333, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 2663

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit·Decided November 2, 1931·No. 475·Published·Cited by 18 cases

Opinion

PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.

This is an action to recover on a policy of war risk insurance. Upon the trial there was a verdict for plaintiff. Whereupon defendant filed a motion for a new trial. The eourt sustained such motion, and entered an order setting aside the verdict and granting defendant a new trial. Plaintiff has undertaken to appeal from such order. The cause now stands in the District Court with the issues undisposed of, as if it had never been tried.

Except in patent suits and proceedings for injunctions and the appointment of receivers, where it has jurisdiction to review certain interlocutory orders or decrees, the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Appeals upon appeal is limited to the review of final decisions of District Courts. Sections 225, 227 and 227a, Title 28 USCA.

A final decision is one that disposes of the entire controversy between the parties. Wright v. Taft-Peirce Mfg. Co. (C. C. A. 1) 287 F. 131; Todd Engineering, D. D. & R. Co. v. United States (C. C. A. 5) 32 F.(2d) 734, 735; La Bourgogne, 210 U. S. 95, 112, 28 S. Ct. 664, 52 L. Ed. 973.

An order sotting aside a verdict and granting a motion for a new trial is not a final decision, and an appeal does not lie therefrom. Ft. Dodge Portland Cement Corp. v. Monk (C. C. A. 8) 276 F. 113; Clement v. Wilson (C. C. A. 2) 135 F. 749; Wright v. TaftPeirce Mfg. Co., supra; Dry Dock, E. B. & B. R. Co. v. Petkunas (C. C. A. 2) 261 F. 988; Sentinel Co. v. Dinwiddie (C. C. A. 7) 41 F. *334 (2d) 57; Hume v. Bowie, 148 U. S. 245, 13 S. Ct. 582, 37 L. Ed. 438. .

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

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

PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.

This is an action to recover on a policy of war risk insurance. Upon the trial there was a verdict for plaintiff. Whereupon defendant filed a motion for a new trial. The eourt sustained such motion, and entered an order setting aside the verdict and granting defendant a new trial. Plaintiff has undertaken to appeal from such order. The cause now stands in the District Court with the issues undisposed of, as if it had never been tried.

Except in patent suits and proceedings for injunctions and the appointment of receivers, where it has jurisdiction to review certain interlocutory orders or decrees, the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Appeals upon appeal is limited to the review of final decisions of District Courts. Sections 225, 227 and 227a, Title 28 USCA.

A final decision is one that disposes of the entire controversy between the parties. Wright v. Taft-Peirce Mfg. Co. (C. C. A. 1) 287 F. 131; Todd Engineering, D. D. & R. Co. v. United States (C. C. A. 5) 32 F.(2d) 734, 735; La Bourgogne, 210 U. S. 95, 112, 28 S. Ct. 664, 52 L. Ed. 973.

An order sotting aside a verdict and granting a motion for a new trial is not a final decision, and an appeal does not lie therefrom. Ft. Dodge Portland Cement Corp. v. Monk (C. C. A. 8) 276 F. 113; Clement v. Wilson (C. C. A. 2) 135 F. 749; Wright v. TaftPeirce Mfg. Co., supra; Dry Dock, E. B. & B. R. Co. v. Petkunas (C. C. A. 2) 261 F. 988; Sentinel Co. v. Dinwiddie (C. C. A. 7) 41 F. *334 (2d) 57; Hume v. Bowie, 148 U. S. 245, 13 S. Ct. 582, 37 L. Ed. 438. .

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Hunt v. United States, 53 F.2d 333, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 2663 (10th Cir. 1931).

Pincite

53 F.2d 333 (Hunt v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related