Sinclair Refining Co. v. Tompkins

Fifth Circuit

Sinclair Refining Co. v. Tompkins

133 F.2d 198, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3782

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 29, 1943

DocketNo. 10489

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 133 F.2d 198 (Sinclair Refining Co. v. Tompkins) 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

Sinclair Refining Co. v. Tompkins, 133 F.2d 198, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3782 (5th Cir. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellee obtained a judgment against appellant, which was reversed for error in the trial, with costs of appeal against appellee. Sinclair Refining Co. v. Tompkins, 5 Cir., 117 F.2d 596. Judgment for these costs was entered on entering the mandate in the District Court, and remains unpaid. Appellant moved the District Court to stay further proceedings until appellee should pay this judgment. Appellee moved to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis, making an affidavit pursuant to the statute. 28 U.S.C.A. § 832. Appellant challenged the affidavit as untrue and moved a dismissal of the cause under 28 U.S.C.A. § 835. The Judge heard evidence, sustained the affidavit of poverty, held the cause had probable merit, and should be allowed prosecuted in forma pauperis, and denied the motion for stay. This appeal was taken.

The above recited motions were all proceedings in the pending cause, and the judgment rendered on them did not dispose of the case, but left it to be tried. There is no final judgment from which an appeal will lie: The appeal is accordingly

Dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellee obtained a judgment against appellant, which was reversed for error in the trial, with costs of appeal against appellee. Sinclair Refining Co. v. Tompkins, 5 Cir., 117 F.2d 596. Judgment for these costs was entered on entering the mandate in the District Court, and remains unpaid. Appellant moved the District Court to stay further proceedings until appellee should pay this judgment. Appellee moved to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis, making an affidavit pursuant to the statute. 28 U.S.C.A. § 832. Appellant challenged the affidavit as untrue and moved a dismissal of the cause under 28 U.S.C.A. § 835. The Judge heard evidence, sustained the affidavit of poverty, held the cause had probable merit, and should be allowed prosecuted in forma pauperis, and denied the motion for stay. This appeal was taken.

The above recited motions were all proceedings in the pending cause, and the judgment rendered on them did not dispose of the case, but left it to be tried. There is no final judgment from which an appeal will lie: The appeal is accordingly

Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 F.2d 198, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sinclair-refining-co-v-tompkins-ca5-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack