Urrutia Aviation Enterprises, Inc. v. B. B. Burson and Associates, Inc.

406 F.2d 769
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided February 26, 1969·No. 26313_1·Published·Cited by 17 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In addition to a formal ratification of commencement of the action pursuant to Rule 17, F.R.Civ.P., filed in the District Court by the Assignee (Howard), the Assignor (B. B. Burson and Associates, Inc.) and the Assignee have placed in escrow, with the Clerk of the District Court as escrow holder, a formal satisfaction of judgment signed by the Assignee and the Assignor, and binding them jointly. This document is to be delivered to the judgment debtor (Urrutia Aviation Enterprises, Inc. and Saul Urrutia) upon payment in full of the judgment with interest and costs or the written authorization of the Assignor and Assignee.

There has thus been full compliance with both the letter and spirit of Rule 17. This arrangement, suggested by the Court at oral argument, and accepted by the judgment creditor eliminates any fear that the judgment debtor may be forced to pay the judgment more than once.

This disposition renders the appeal frivolous and the judgment below is in all respects affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Urrutia Aviation Enterprises, Inc. v. B. B. Burson and Associates, Inc., 406 F.2d 769 (5th Cir. 1969).

406 F.2d 769 (Urrutia Aviation Enterprises, Inc. v. B. B. Burson and Associates, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Peer International Corp. v. Latin American Music Corp.
161 F. Supp. 2d 38 (D. Puerto Rico, 2001)
Pillsbury Co. v. Midland Enterprises, Inc.
715 F. Supp. 738 (E.D. Louisiana, 1989)
Big John, B v. V. Indian Head Grain Company
718 F.2d 143 (Fifth Circuit, 1983)
Edwards, Inc. v. Arlen Realty & Development Corp.
466 F. Supp. 505 (D. South Carolina, 1978)
Clarkson Co. v. Rockwell International Corp.
441 F. Supp. 792 (N.D. California, 1977)
James v. Nashville Bridge Co.
74 F.R.D. 595 (N.D. Mississippi, 1977)
Spangler v. Pasadena City Board Of Education
537 F.2d 1031 (Ninth Circuit, 1976)
STATE EX REL. NAWD'S TV & APP. v. District Ct.
543 P.2d 1336 (Montana Supreme Court, 1975)
Honey v. George Hyman Construction Co.
63 F.R.D. 443 (District of Columbia, 1974)
Pace v. General Electric Co.
55 F.R.D. 215 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1972)