Lewis Lehrer and Eleanor B. Lehrer, His Wife v. McCloskey Homes, Inc. And McCloskey & Co. Of Florida

Third Circuit

Lewis Lehrer and Eleanor B. Lehrer, His Wife v. McCloskey Homes, Inc. And McCloskey & Co. Of Florida

242 F.2d 190, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 2777

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 13, 1957

Docket11954

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 242 F.2d 190 (Lewis Lehrer and Eleanor B. Lehrer, His Wife v. McCloskey Homes, Inc. And McCloskey & Co. Of Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lewis Lehrer and Eleanor B. Lehrer, His Wife v. McCloskey Homes, Inc. And McCloskey & Co. Of Florida, 242 F.2d 190, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 2777 (3d Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs-appellants have presented more than one claim for relief in their complaint, viz., a claim against Mc-Closkey Homes, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and a claim against McCloskey & Co. of Florida, a Florida corporation. The order of the court below dismissing the complaint as to McCloskey Homes, Inc., did not constitute a final and ap *191 pealable judgment under Rule 54(b), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C., because the express determination that there was no just reason for delay and the express direction for the entry of judgment were not made by the court below as the rule requires. In so stating we desire to make plain that no application was made to the court below for judgment in the terms required by Rule 54(b). We are without power to entertain the appeal. See District 65 etc. v. McKague, 3 Cir., 1954, 216 F.2d 153 and Shipley Corp. v. Leonard Marcus Co., 3 Cir., 1954, 214 F.2d 493.

Should the court below see fit to make the determination and the order required by Rule 54(b) and an appeal were then taken to this court, we could dispose of the appeal on its merits on the present record, enlarged by the determination and order referred to in the preceding paragraph, by submission to the present panel. Further oral argument would be obviated and time saved.

The appeal will be dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs-appellants have presented more than one claim for relief in their complaint, viz., a claim against Mc-Closkey Homes, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and a claim against McCloskey & Co. of Florida, a Florida corporation. The order of the court below dismissing the complaint as to McCloskey Homes, Inc., did not constitute a final and ap *191 pealable judgment under Rule 54(b), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C., because the express determination that there was no just reason for delay and the express direction for the entry of judgment were not made by the court below as the rule requires. In so stating we desire to make plain that no application was made to the court below for judgment in the terms required by Rule 54(b). We are without power to entertain the appeal. See District 65 etc. v. McKague, 3 Cir., 1954, 216 F.2d 153 and Shipley Corp. v. Leonard Marcus Co., 3 Cir., 1954, 214 F.2d 493.

Should the court below see fit to make the determination and the order required by Rule 54(b) and an appeal were then taken to this court, we could dispose of the appeal on its merits on the present record, enlarged by the determination and order referred to in the preceding paragraph, by submission to the present panel. Further oral argument would be obviated and time saved.

The appeal will be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 F.2d 190, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 2777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-lehrer-and-eleanor-b-lehrer-his-wife-v-mccloskey-homes-inc-and-ca3-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack