Manuel Borges v. Art Steel Co., Inc.

Second Circuit

Manuel Borges v. Art Steel Co., Inc.

243 F.2d 350, 40 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2014, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4515

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 25, 1957

Docket159, Docket 24297

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 243 F.2d 350 (Manuel Borges v. Art Steel Co., Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Manuel Borges v. Art Steel Co., Inc., 243 F.2d 350, 40 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2014, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4515 (2d Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this action by eleven employees of defendant to recover increased wages which they claim they would have been entitled to receive had they remained at work instead of entering the armed forces, Judge Dimock granted a summary judgment holding that plaintiffs were entitled to the claimed increases; but he did not then fix the amounts, saying in his opinion, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 143 F.Supp. 169, 170: “The parties are agreed that, if summary judgment is granted the question of the actual dollar amount which each plaintiff should receive shall await subsequent determination by the parties and, if necessary, this court. Rule 56(d), F.R.C.P.” No formal judgment or further action by the court has been entered.

Judge Dimock’s citation demonstrates what the facts disclose, namely, that this is but “a partial summary judgment,” which, under well settled rules, is not appealable. See Tye v. Hertz Drivurself Stations, 3 Cir., 173 F.2d 317, an action for overtime compensation, and see also, e.g., King v. California Co., 5 Cir., 224 F.2d 193; Wynn v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 9 Cir., 212 F.2d 953, 955-957; Audi Vision, Inc., v. RCA Mfg. Co., 2 Cir., 136 F.2d 621, 147 A.L.R. 574; 6 Moore’s Federal Practice 2311 (2d Ed. 1953). We must raise the question even though the parties have not. Tye v. Hertz Drivurself Stations, supra, 3 Cir., 173 F.2d 317. Appeal is therefore premature, before the amount of recovery is fixed.

Appeal dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this action by eleven employees of defendant to recover increased wages which they claim they would have been entitled to receive had they remained at work instead of entering the armed forces, Judge Dimock granted a summary judgment holding that plaintiffs were entitled to the claimed increases; but he did not then fix the amounts, saying in his opinion, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 143 F.Supp. 169, 170: “The parties are agreed that, if summary judgment is granted the question of the actual dollar amount which each plaintiff should receive shall await subsequent determination by the parties and, if necessary, this court. Rule 56(d), F.R.C.P.” No formal judgment or further action by the court has been entered.

Judge Dimock’s citation demonstrates what the facts disclose, namely, that this is but “a partial summary judgment,” which, under well settled rules, is not appealable. See Tye v. Hertz Drivurself Stations, 3 Cir., 173 F.2d 317, an action for overtime compensation, and see also, e.g., King v. California Co., 5 Cir., 224 F.2d 193; Wynn v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 9 Cir., 212 F.2d 953, 955-957; Audi Vision, Inc., v. RCA Mfg. Co., 2 Cir., 136 F.2d 621, 147 A.L.R. 574; 6 Moore’s Federal Practice 2311 (2d Ed. 1953). We must raise the question even though the parties have not. Tye v. Hertz Drivurself Stations, supra, 3 Cir., 173 F.2d 317. Appeal is therefore premature, before the amount of recovery is fixed.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 F.2d 350, 40 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2014, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manuel-borges-v-art-steel-co-inc-ca2-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack