Brennan v. United Fruit Co.

Decision Date23 February 1940
Docket NumberNo. 9241.,9241.
Citation108 F.2d 710
PartiesBRENNAN v. UNITED FRUIT CO.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Joseph F. Blasi, Jr., of New Orleans, La., for appellant.

W. B. Spencer, of New Orleans, La., for appellee.

Before FOSTER, HOLMES, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.

McCORD, Circuit Judge.

James Brennan is the owner of letters patent covering certain improvements on banana unloading machines. He brought suit against United Fruit Company seeking damages for alleged infringement of the patent. Brennan charged the defendant with having made, used, and sold banana unloaders embodying and containing the improvements described in his letters patent. He charged also that acts of infringement had occurred within the past six years in the Eastern District of Louisiana and elsewhere in the United States.

United Fruit Company appeared specially and filed a plea to the jurisdiction of the court on the grounds that it was not an inhabitant of the Eastern District and that no alleged act of infringement had occurred in the district within six years of the filing of the petition. Issue was joined on this plea. After hearing testimony and argument of counsel, the court sustained the defendant's plea and dismissed the suit. The case is here on a stipulation of facts.

On April 25, 1939, plaintiff duly filed and served notice of appeal. June 2, 1939, on motion of the plaintiff, the District Court extended the time for docketing and filing the transcript of record in this court to July 21, 1939. On July 13, 1939, the plaintiff filed a motion in this court for further extension, and on July 15th one of the judges extended the time to August 21, 1939. By this extension the plaintiff was given, in all, 116 days within which to docket the case and file the transcript of record. The ninety day period provided by Rule 16 of this court expired July 24, 1939, and the transcript of record was actually filed on August 19, 1939.

The United Fruit Company filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the filing and docketing occurred more than ninety days after the notice of appeal; and that the order of further extension granted by a judge of this court was ineffective to extend the time for docketing and filing and that said order of extension was in violation of Rules 10 and 16 of this court.

It appears that the motion for extension beyond the ninety day period was filed before the expiration of the previous extension, and that the reasons for further extension were manifestly meritorious. It is within the province of the court and we do extend time in cases where it is in the interest of justice to do so. Such an extension cannot be made by a single judge except tentatively for the court and subject to its approval. In a meritorious case such as this the court may in the exercise of discretion overlook the irregularity in extending time and allow the record to be filed. It does not appear that the appellee has been prejudiced in any wise by the extension in this case, and we overrule the motion to dismiss and consider the case on its merits. Cf. Rills' Heirs v. A. Wilbert's Sons Lumber & Shingle Co., 5 Cir., 95 F.2d 289.

James Brennan, the appellant, was employed by the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans on November 7, 1919. He worked as a master mechanic until 1930 and had charge of the Dock Board's machine shop and engineering department equipment, including banana conveyors used by the Dock Board for the unloading of banana cargoes. Prior to 1916...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Westinghouse Elec. Supply Co. v. Healy Corp.
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • 31 January 1977
    ...702--705, 67 S.Ct. 954, 91 L.Ed. 1184 (1947). Ainsworth v. Gill Glass & Fixture Co., 104 F.2d 83 (3rd Cir. 1939). Brennan v. United Fruit Co., 108 F.2d 710 (5th Cir. 1940). Pang-Tsu Mow v. Republic of China, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 131, 220 F.2d 811 (1954). United States v. Bowen, 310 F.2d 45, 47 (......
  • Kalvar Corporation v. Memorex Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • 30 April 1974
    ...infringement of the process patent occurred in this district in order to maintain the action in this jurisdiction. Brennan v. United Fruit Co., 108 F.2d 710 (5th Cir. 1940); Grantham v. Challenge-Cook Bros., Inc., 420 F.2d 1182 (7th Cir. 1969); Phillips v. Baker, 121 F.2d 752 (9th Cir. 1941......
  • Arline v. Brown
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 28 June 1951
    ...of the judgment; and, in the interest of justice, we deem it necessary to consider the appeal on its merits. Cf. Brennan v. United Fruit Co., 5 Cir., 108 F. 2d 710; Morrow v. Wood, 5 Cir., 126 F.2d The motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled; and the judgment appealed from is affirmed exc......
  • Morrow v. Wood
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 20 March 1942
    ...The record was not filed and docketed within that time, nor was an extension of time applied for or granted. Cf. Brennan v. United Fruit Co., 5 Cir., 108 F.2d 710. It is true that in meritorious cases we can and do overlook irregularities in perfecting the appeal. Such case is not here pres......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT