Deauville Associates v. Murrell, 12993.
Decision Date | 05 April 1950 |
Docket Number | No. 12993.,12993. |
Citation | 180 F.2d 275 |
Parties | DEAUVILLE ASSOCIATES, Inc. v. MURRELL et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Bolling R. Powell, Jr., Washington, D. C., Paul V. McNutt, Washington, D. C., Samuel H. Rubin, Detroit, Mich., for appellant.
D. H. Redfearn, Miami, Fla., R. H. Ferrell, Miami, Fla., Charles Danton, Miami Beach, Fla., John M. Murrell, Miami, Fla., for appellees.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and McCORD and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.
We consider it unnecessary on this appeal to review the history of this litigation and all prior proceedings related thereto, since it appears that the issues here in controversy have already been decided by this court in the case of Deauville Associates, Inc. v. Eristavi-Tchitcherine, et al., 5 Cir., 173 F.2d 745, 746, wherein it was held:
Without having sought a review of this prior adjudication by application for certiorari to the Supreme Court within the time allowed, and after the expiration of several months, during which time this former decision has become final and binding, appellant now seeks to be relieved of the duty of compliance with the final wording of our former decree limiting its rights to intervene on the ground that this court had no power or authority to enter any such order. Appellant claims that under Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., it had an absolute right to intervene generally from the date of filing its petitions for intervention, and for the purpose of attacking all of the numerous decrees and orders heretofore entered affecting the property in suit. This contention is without merit, for it ignores the undisputed fact of record that appellant was not a party to the original suit, but acquired whatever rights it may have in the property, if any, only by virtue of the assignment from Lasser and Winkel, and must therefore stand in their shoes with respect to all phases of the litigation. The fact that subsequent litigation may have impaired or adversely affected the rights of appellant under the assignment would not justify our disturbing all prior orders and decrees entered in this controversy and unfavorable to appellant which were binding upon Lasser and Winkel, as assignors of appellant, when made. As stated in our prior decision, appellant has no absolute right of intervention under the assignment and Rule 24(a), but only "the right to have such fruits of the suit awarded to it under the contract as might otherwise have been awarded to Lasser and Winkel." Deauville Associates, Inc. v. Eristavi-Tchitcherine, 5 Cir., 173 F.2d 745, 746. In fact, it appears from the record that appellant was not even formed as a corporation until approximately two years after this litigation was first begun, and yet it again urges that it should now be allowed to relitigate practically all proceedings affecting the property in dispute which have been had in the district court and reviewed by this court during the past five years. This it may not do....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Foster v. City of Detroit, Michigan
...Sherwin v. Welch, 319 F. 2d 729 (D.C.Cir. 1963); Paull v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 313 F.2d 612 (8th Cir. 1963). Deauville Associates v. Murrell, 180 F.2d 275 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 821, 71 S.Ct. 54, 95 L.Ed. 603, rehearing denied, 340 U.S. 893, 71 S.Ct. 204, 95 L.Ed. 648 (19......
-
Bernal v. Education Credit, 98-56432
...and decrees entered in this controversy and unfavorable to [ECMC] which were binding upon [CSAC] . . . when made. Deauville Assoc. v. Murrell, 180 F.2d 275, 277 (5th Cir. 1950). ECMC, it seems, does not wish to confront the default by CSAC or attempt to explain that default. At least it has......
-
Summit Canyon Res., LLC v. Barker
...marks omitted) (quoting Collateral Control Corp. v. Deal, 638 F.2d 1362, 1364 (5th Cir.1981)). 23. Id. (quoting Deauville Assoc. v. Murrell, 180 F.2d 275, 277 (5th Cir. 1950)); see also 6-25 JAMES W. MOORE ET AL., MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE - CIVIL § 25.36 (2015) (citing numerous circuit cour......
-
Deauville Associates v. Murrell, 13660.
...appealed from are affirmed. 1 Deauville Associates, Inc., v. Eristavi-Tchitcherine, 5 Cir., 173 F.2d 745. See also Deauville Associates v. Murrell, 5 Cir., 180 F.2d 275, a direct attack on that order, and Deauville Associates v. Lojoy Corp., 5 Cir., 181 F.2d 5, an indirect, a collateral att......