Lejeune Et Ux. v. Midwestern Ins. Co. Of Oklahoma City, Okl

197 F.2d 149, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2593
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJune 5, 1952
Docket14071_1
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 197 F.2d 149 (Lejeune Et Ux. v. Midwestern Ins. Co. Of Oklahoma City, Okl) 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
Lejeune Et Ux. v. Midwestern Ins. Co. Of Oklahoma City, Okl, 197 F.2d 149, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2593 (5th Cir. 1952).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Calling to our attention the fact that a summary judgment was entered against plaintiff on January 23, 1952, while the notice of appeal was not filed until February 25, 1952, more than thirty days thereafter, appellee, defendant below, moves to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Rule 73(a) and (b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.

Appellants concede that the facts are as stated in appellee’s motion and that, under rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the last day on which the plaintiffs could have given their notice of intention to appeal fell on February 23, 1952. They contend, though, that the notice of appeal was timely because, though not filed until February 25th, it was placed in the United States Post Office in Lafayette, Louisiana, for mailing, on February 23rd.

Urging upon us that this was a compliance with the rule, they insist that to hold otherwise would in effect give more time for appealing to persons living in the same place with the clerk than to persons living at other places.

*150 We cannot agree. In Louisiana Discount Corp. v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 193 F.2d 495, having to do with the filing with the Tax Court of a petition for review, the same claim was made to, and rejected by this court, on the authority of Poynor v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 81 F.2d 521.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the cause is dismissed. Cf. Martin v. Hess, 6 Cir., 176 F.2d 834, 835; Lamb v. Shasta Oil Co., 5 Cir., 149 F.2d 729.

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

Related

Eubank v. Strickland (In Re Strickland)
50 B.R. 16 (M.D. Alabama, 1985)
Norman Rothman v. United States
508 F.2d 648 (Third Circuit, 1975)
Gus Lindsey, Jr. v. E. P. Perini, Superintendent
409 F.2d 1341 (Sixth Circuit, 1969)
Floyd Charles Fallen v. United States
306 F.2d 697 (Fifth Circuit, 1962)
I. H. Spears v. Humble Oil & Refining Company
261 F.2d 231 (Fifth Circuit, 1958)
Mary Alma Knowles v. United States
260 F.2d 852 (Fifth Circuit, 1958)
Waddell v. Chicago Land Clearance Commission
206 F.2d 748 (Seventh Circuit, 1953)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
197 F.2d 149, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lejeune-et-ux-v-midwestern-ins-co-of-oklahoma-city-okl-ca5-1952.