Greenwood v. Greenwood, 11498.

Decision Date14 July 1955
Docket NumberNo. 11498.,11498.
Citation224 F.2d 318
PartiesSpencer S. GREENWOOD, John H. Greenwood, Henry B. Greenwood, Lucille L. Maddox and John F. Greenwood, Appellants, v. Benjamin GREENWOOD, William Davis and Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

George E. Beechwood, Philadelphia, Pa. (Lewis Weinstock, Conlen, LaBrum & Beechwood, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellants.

M. H. Goldstein, Philadelphia, Pa.(J. Arthur Ewing, Albert C. Brand, Bernard L. Barkan, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellees.

Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, HASTIE, Circuit Judge, and WILLSON, District Judge.

HASTIE, Circuit Judge.

A jurisdictional obstacle impedes this appeal. After trial of a diversity suit to set aside a deed, and informed by the answers of an advisory jury1 to special interrogatories, the District Court entered judgment on the merits for the defendants. This decree was dated January 29, 1954 and its docket entry bears the same date. However, the docket entry also cites that the decree was "noted and notice mailed February 1, 1954." In the meantime, also on January 29, 1954, the plaintiffs had filed "a motion to set aside answers to interrogatories" on the basis of alleged defects therein and alleged errors in the admission of evidence. There is dispute whether this was a motion before or after judgment. Thereafter, on February 15, 1954, plaintiffs filed a motion, dated February 12, 1954, to set aside the decree and for a new trial. That motion stated as its basis the identical considerations set out in the January 29 motion and in addition that the decree was "against the weight of the evidence."

On November 1, 1954 the District Court, taking no action on the January 29 motion as such, denied the February 15 motion, stating that the requested relief was beyond the power of the court because the motion was not filed within 10 days after entry of judgment as required by Rule 59(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 F.R.D. 366. On November 17, 1954 the plaintiffs filed notice of this appeal "from the order of the District Court, filed November 1, 1954, denying Plaintiffs' motion to set aside decree in favor of defendants and motion for a new trial."

Apart from the obvious untimeliness of the motion for new trial,2 the order designated in the notice of appeal is the kind of order which normally is not appealable, since the dispositive action below was the judgment on the merits and not the subsequent denial of new trial. Bass v. Baltimore & O. Terminal R. Co., 7 Cir., 1944, 142 F.2d 779; St. Luke's Hospital v. Melin, 8 Cir., 1949, 172 F.2d 532. It is true that, where there...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • United States v. Bertone
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 1 November 1957
    ...Lefco v. United States, 3 Cir., 1934, 74 F.2d 66, 69; McElheny v. United States, 9 Cir., 1944, 146 F.2d 932, 933; Greenwood v. Greenwood, 3 Cir., 1955, 224 F.2d 318, 319. There is an exception to this rule, however, in the case of a motion for a new trial which is based upon grounds arising......
  • John E. Smith's Sons Co. v. Lattimer Foundry & Mach. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 28 December 1956
    ...denied 323 U.S. 775, 65 S.Ct. 135, 89 L.Ed. 619; Thibaut v. Car & General Ins. Corp., 5 Cir., 1950, 181 F.2d 494; Greenwood v. Greenwood, 3 Cir., 1955, 224 F.2d 318. 2 Peterman v. Indian Motorcycle Co., 1 Cir., 1954, 216 F.2d 289, 291. 3 6 Moore's Federal Practice, 1951, p. 3891. 4 Fairmoun......
  • United States v. Stromberg
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 15 November 1955
    ...Mims, 5 Cir., 199 F.2d 582, 583, and cases there cited; see also, Sobel v. Diatz, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 329, 189 F.2d 26, 27; Greenwood v. Greenwood, 3 Cir., 224 F.2d 318, 319.2 Stromberg was born in Russia in 1903. With his parents he came to the United States in 1910, and has resided here since......
  • United States v. 205.03 ACRES OF LAND, ETC.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • 2 March 1966
    ...59 for the service of the motion for new trial. The additional grounds for this motion need not be considered. See Greenwood v. Greenwood, 224 F.2d 318 (3rd Cir. 1955); Baird v. Aluminum Seal Co., 149 F.Supp. 874 (W.D.Pa. 1956); and Marks v. Philadelphia Wholesale Drug Company, 125 F.Supp. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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