Jimmie Martin v. H.M.B. Construction Company

Fifth Circuit

Jimmie Martin v. H.M.B. Construction Company

279 F.2d 495, 6 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5026, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4316

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 10, 1960

Docket18237_1

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 279 F.2d 495 (Jimmie Martin v. H.M.B. Construction 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

Jimmie Martin v. H.M.B. Construction Company, 279 F.2d 495, 6 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5026, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4316 (5th Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A judgment based upon a jury’s verdict was rendered on October 26, 1959, for the appellant and against the appellee in the amount of $2875.48, consisting of $2125.48 as overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 1 plus $750.00 as attorney’s fee. On December 1, 1959, the appellee paid to the Clerk of the court the full amount of the judgment with interest and costs of court. On December 10, 1959, the district court modified its previous judgment, in substance as follows:

“That the sum of $2125.48 recovered by plaintiff constitutes wages from which there is due to the United States of America as withholding tax the sum of $382.49 and that there is due under the Federal *496 Insurance Contributions Act tax in the amount of $53.14; and the $435.63, the total of said sums, should be disbursed by the Clerk to the United States of America in discharge of such obligations and the balance thereof paid to plaintiff, Jimmie Martin and his attorney;

“It is therefore ordered that the Clerk of this Court issue a check to the Director of Internal Revenue in the amount of $435.63 and that said Clerk issue a second check in the amount of $2456.12 payable to Jimmie Martin and his attorney, Sidney Lee.”

This appeal is prosecuted from the order modifying the judgment. It is not disputed that such modification was made only after due notice and a hearing. Nor is it disputed that the employer was required to withhold as income tax 2 the sum of $382.49, and as Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax 3 the sum of $53.14. The district court had authority to modify the judgment so as to relieve the defendant, appellee, for “(6) any * * * reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Rule 60(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. Such action of the district court will be reviewed only for abuse of discretion. Seismograph Service Corporation v. Offshore Raydist, Inc., 5 Cir., 1958, 263 F.2d 5, 23. Not only was there no abuse of discretion but the action of the district court was proper. The judgment appealed from is therefore

Affirmed.

1

. 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq.

2

. 26 U.S.C.A. § 3402.

3

. 26 U.S.C.A. § 3102.

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

PER CURIAM.

A judgment based upon a jury’s verdict was rendered on October 26, 1959, for the appellant and against the appellee in the amount of $2875.48, consisting of $2125.48 as overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 1 plus $750.00 as attorney’s fee. On December 1, 1959, the appellee paid to the Clerk of the court the full amount of the judgment with interest and costs of court. On December 10, 1959, the district court modified its previous judgment, in substance as follows:

“That the sum of $2125.48 recovered by plaintiff constitutes wages from which there is due to the United States of America as withholding tax the sum of $382.49 and that there is due under the Federal *496 Insurance Contributions Act tax in the amount of $53.14; and the $435.63, the total of said sums, should be disbursed by the Clerk to the United States of America in discharge of such obligations and the balance thereof paid to plaintiff, Jimmie Martin and his attorney;

“It is therefore ordered that the Clerk of this Court issue a check to the Director of Internal Revenue in the amount of $435.63 and that said Clerk issue a second check in the amount of $2456.12 payable to Jimmie Martin and his attorney, Sidney Lee.”

This appeal is prosecuted from the order modifying the judgment. It is not disputed that such modification was made only after due notice and a hearing. Nor is it disputed that the employer was required to withhold as income tax 2 the sum of $382.49, and as Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax 3 the sum of $53.14. The district court had authority to modify the judgment so as to relieve the defendant, appellee, for “(6) any * * * reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Rule 60(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. Such action of the district court will be reviewed only for abuse of discretion. Seismograph Service Corporation v. Offshore Raydist, Inc., 5 Cir., 1958, 263 F.2d 5, 23. Not only was there no abuse of discretion but the action of the district court was proper. The judgment appealed from is therefore

Affirmed.

1

. 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq.

2

. 26 U.S.C.A. § 3402.

3

. 26 U.S.C.A. § 3102.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 F.2d 495, 6 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5026, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jimmie-martin-v-hmb-construction-company-ca5-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack