In re Kilpatrick, 12298

Citation167 F.2d 471
Decision Date13 April 1948
Docket NumberNo. 12298,12299.,12298
PartiesIn re KILPATRICK. In re PARKER.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

W. P. McLean, of Fort Worth, Tex., and William H. DeParcq, of Minneapolis, Minn., for petitioners.

W. B. Harrell, of Dallas, Tex., and Samuels, Brown, Herman & Scott, of Fort Worth, Tex., for respondent.

Before HUTCHESON, HOLMES, and WALLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners, plaintiffs in separate suits in the court below, moved there for a dismissal without prejudice of their suits. Their motions denied, each filed notice of appeal. Alleging that respondent notwithstanding their appeals has set the causes for trial and, unless prohibited from doing so, would proceed to trial in them, each has filed a petition for writ of prohibition.

This court may issue writs of prohibition only in aid of its jurisdiction to review final decisions of the district courts.1 It appears from the motion papers and the answers thereto that petitioners' attempted appeals from orders denying dismissal are not from final judgments.2 It is quite plain that this court is without jurisdiction to consider the merits of the questions sought to be raised in the applications for the writs and that for want of jurisdiction the petitions must be denied.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Daker v. Warren, 14-13078
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • July 11, 2019
    ..."may issue writs of prohibition only in aid of [our] jurisdiction to review final decisions of the district courts." In re Kilpatrick, 167 F.2d 471, 471 (5th Cir. 1948). We lack jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to our Clerk. The district court also abused its discretion by denying D......
  • New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. BL Jones & Company
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • May 9, 1958
    ...determination, makes no final adjudication and is not appealable. Ballard v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 109 F.2d 388; In re Kilpatrick, 5 Cir., 167 F.2d 471; Toomey v. Toomey, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 77, 149 F.2d 19. Nor is this order appealable as a judgment on one of multiple claims. Rule 54(b......
  • Kilpatrick v. Texas Ry Co, 233
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 8, 1949

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