Jones v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 09 July 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 12180.,12180. |
| Citation | 128 F.2d 888 |
| Parties | JONES v. THOMPSON et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Tom J. Terral, of Little Rock, Ark., for appellant.
Richard M. Ryan, of Hot Springs, Ark. (Henry Donham, of Little Rock, Ark., on the brief), for appellees.
Before STONE, SANBORN, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
On May 9, 1941, an order was entered by the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas dismissing the complaint of the appellant upon the ground that it shows upon its face that the cause of action stated is barred by the statute of limitations. On August 7, 1941, the appellant filed a motion to vacate the order of dismissal, and on September 3, 1941, he filed an amended and substituted motion to vacate the order. The District Court on September 3, 1941, denied the appellant's amended and substituted motion to vacate the order of dismissal, and on September 9, 1941, the appellant filed a notice of appeal "from the order of the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas, Hot Springs Division, said order denying amended and substituted motion and motion to vacate order of dismissal, said order having been entered in said court on the date of September 3rd, 1941."
The appellant asserts that the District Court erred in dismissing his complaint, and also erred in denying the motion to vacate the order of dismissal.
The appellees have filed a motion to dismiss this appeal upon the ground that it was not taken from the order of dismissal within three months from the date of its entry.
While it is, no doubt, true, as appellant asserts, that his motion to vacate the order dismissing his complaint had the effect of extending the time within which he might appeal from that order, the fact is that he has not appealed from it, but has appealed from the order denying his motion to vacate and set aside the order of dismissal.
Motions to vacate orders, motions for rehearings or for new trials, and like motions are addressed to the discretion of the trial court and are intended to call its attention to errors allegedly committed by it and to afford an opportunity for their correction. Orders granting or denying such motions are not appealable. Conboy v. First National Bank of Jersey City, 203 U.S. 141, 145, 27 S.Ct. 50, 51 L.Ed. 128; Wayne United Gas Co. v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 300 U.S. 131, 137, 57 S.Ct. 382, 81 L.Ed. 557; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Microwave Communications, Inc. v. F. C. C.
...Baltimore & O. R.R., 20 App.D.C. 541, 543 (1902); In re L. F. Grammes & Sons, Inc., 324 F.2d 675, 677 (3d Cir. 1963); Jones v. Thompson, 128 F.2d 888, 889 (8th Cir. 1942). As the Supreme Court said in Pfister,A refusal (upon application for rehearing) to modify the original order . . . requ......
-
Pfister v. Northern Illinois Finance Corporation
...85 L.Ed. 177; Brockett v. Brockett, 2 How. 238, 11 L.Ed. 251; Roemer v. Bernheim, 132 U.S. 103, 10 S.Ct. 12, 33 L.Ed. 277; Jones v. Thompson, 8 Cir., 128 F.2d 888; State of Missouri v. Todd, 8 Cir., 122 F.2d On the other hand, where out of time petitions for rehearing are filed and the refe......
-
J. I. Case Co. v. McDonald
...203, 65 P. 250; Bass v. Baltimore & O. Terminal R. Co., 7 Cir., 142 F.2d 779; In re Friedman, 123 Misc. 809, 206 N.Y.S. 410; Jones v. Thompson, 8 Cir., 128 F.2d 888; 76 C.J.S. page 106; Lake v. State, 100 Fla. 373, 129 So. 827; Citizens Auto. Inter-Insurance Exch. v. Andrus, 70 Idaho 114, 2......
-
Skirvin v. Mesta
...vacate such consolidation. And in the absence of such a statute, an order of that kind cannot be reviewed on a separate appeal. Jones v. Thompson, 128 F.2d 888; Old Colony Trust Co. v. Kurn, 8 Cir., 138 F.2d 394; Wilson v. Ammann & Jordan, Tex.Civ.App., 163 S.W.2d 660. Similarly, a separate......