Colvin v. Woods
Decision Date | 14 March 1950 |
Docket Number | No. 12286.,12286. |
Citation | 180 F.2d 893 |
Parties | COLVIN et al. v. WOODS, Housing Expediter. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Ed Dupree, Gen. Counsel, O. H. E., A. M. Edwards, Jr., Acting Asst. Gen. Counsel, William A. Moran, Sp. Lit. Atty., O. H. E., Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Carroll, Davis & Freidenrich, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before MATHEWS and BONE, Circuit Judges, and MATHES, District Judge.
This appeal is from a judgment entered on April 1, 1949, in an action by appellee, Tighe E. Woods, Housing Expediter, against appellants, Gerald Colvin, Rose Bories, Arthur Sandford and Genevieve Sandford.
The judgment was filed with the clerk of the District Court on April 1, 1949. Thereupon, on April 1, 1949, the judgment was noted in the civil docket of the District Court as provided by Rule 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 That notation constituted the entry of the judgment. See Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.2
On or after April 4, 1949, the following notation was made on the judgment: "Entered in civil docket April 4, 1949." That notation is disregarded; for, as indicated above, the judgment was, in fact, entered on April 1, 1949.
Appellee being an officer of the United States, the time for filing a notice of appeal from the judgment was 60 days from its entry. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2107.3 The time was not extended.4 Consequently it expired on May 31, 1949 — 60 days from April 1, 1949. Appellants filed their notice of appeal on June 1, 1949 — one day too late.
Appeal dismissed.
1 Rule 79(a) provides:
2 Rule 58 provides: "The notation of a judgment in the civil docket as provided by Rule 79(a) constitutes the entry of the judgment".
3 Section 2107 provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Heikkila v. Barber
...F.2d 197; In re California Associated Products Co., 1950, 183 F.2d 946; Kam Koon Wan v. E. E. Black, Ltd., 1950, 182 F.2d 146; Colvin v. Woods, 1950, 180 F.2d 893; Hoiness v. United States, 1947, 165 F.2d 504; J. E. Haddock, Ltd., v. Pillsbury, 1946, 155 F.2d 820; Liberty Mutual Insurance C......
-
Dayton Power and Light Co. v. FEDERAL POWER COM'N
...in delivery be only one day. Director of U. S. Bureau of Mines v. Three Fork Coal Co., 4 Cir., 1955, 222 F.2d 425, 426; Colvin v. Woods, 9 Cir., 1950, 180 F.2d 893, 894. 11 In view of our decision, Dayton's appeal No. 13593 is dismissed for mootness. Dayton there asked us to review the Comm......
-
Mondakota Gas Co. v. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.
...Roberts, ex rel. Inmates of California State Prison v. State of California, Department of Corrections, 9 Cir., 183 F. 2d 580; Colvin v. Woods, 9 Cir., 180 F. 2d 893; Marten v. Hess, 6 Cir., 1949. 176 F.2d 834; St. Luke's Hospital v. Melin, 8 Cir., 1949, 172 F.2d 2 Smith v. Johnston, 9 Cir.,......
- Lyons v. Baker