Smith v. United States
| Decision Date | 17 June 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 17645-17647.,17645-17647. |
| Citation | 332 F.2d 731 |
| Parties | Lee SMITH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America et al., Appellees. MERCHANTS MUTUAL BONDING COMPANY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America et al., Appellees. R. L. MADISON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Donald E. O'Brien, U. S. Atty., Sioux City, Iowa, filed motion of the United States to dismiss the appeals.
Lee E. Smith, Correctionville, Iowa, filed objections to motions to dismiss.
Before JOHNSEN, Chief Judge, and MATTHES, Circuit Judge.
These appeals have been taken from the determinations and adjudications set out in United States v. Merchants Mutual Bonding Company, D.C.N.D.Iowa, 220 F. Supp. 163. The United States has moved to dismiss the appeals on the ground that the determinations and adjudications involved are not a final decision or judgment dispositive of the rights of the appellants.
The action was one brought by the United States on a claim of the Commodity Credit Corporation, 15 U.S.C.A. § 714 et seq., for grain storage losses, to recover damages against the surety upon the warehouseman's bond issued pursuant to Chapter 543, Code of Iowa, I.C.A. The warehouseman had gone into bankruptcy, and because there were other storage claimants and the losses exceeded the amount of the bond, the surety interpleaded all the claimants and also impleaded the indemnitor of its liability from executing the bond. In view of the holding in an earlier case in the same court, United States v. West View Grain Company, D.C.Iowa, 189 F.Supp. 483, that Government grain storage was not within the coverage of the warehouseman's bond prescribed by the Iowa statutes, the Court set the matter for initial hearing and determination on the questions of (a) whether liability should be held to exist in favor of the United States upon the bond in the present situation on the basis of factors not involved in the West View Grain Co. determination or as a matter of reconsideration and departure from the construction of the Iowa statutes there made, and (b) whether in the event liability should be so held to exist in favor of the United States, the indemnitor's obligation would under the circumstances encompass that liability.
The Court determined and adjudged that the claim of the United States should be held to be and was within the coverage of the bond, and that the indemnitor's obligation was on the circumstances of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wrist-Rocket Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Saunders Archery Co.
...The order appealed from is interlocutory in nature, and we do not have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Smith v. United States, 332 F.2d 731, 732 (8th Cir. 1964); Zwack v. Kraus Bros. & Co., 237 F.2d 255, 261 (2nd Cir. 1956); Fidelity Trust Co. v. Board of Education, 174 F.2d 642, 6......
-
Smith v. United States
...because the order sought to be appealed from was not an appealable order or "final decision" under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291. Smith v. United States, 8 Cir., 332 F.2d 731. The "* * * matters relating to priority of claims and amounts and issues raised in the pleadings * * *" and not disposed of by......
-
WESTERN STEEL ERECTION COMPANY v. CH LEAVELL & COMPANY
...the order otherwise qualifies for review, such as under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) or 28 U.S. C. § 1292. See Smith v. United States, 332 F.2d 731 (8 Cir. 1964). The appeal must be dismissed for lack of Appeal dismissed. 1 The mere fact that Western must provide the expense of Lea......
-
Jones v. Morrison
...the liability after the notices of appeal were filed. The letter also contained citations 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1291, 1292; Smith v. United States (8 Cir. 1964), 332 F.2d 731; Smith v. Sherman (8 Cir. 1965), 349 F.2d 547; Benada Aluminum Products Co. v. Home Insurance Co. (5 Cir. 1966), 368 F.2d 1......