Lamb v. Shasta Oil Co.
| Decision Date | 24 September 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 10963.,10963. |
| Citation | 149 F.2d 729 |
| Parties | LAMB et al. v. SHASTA OIL CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
E. A. Landman, of Athens, Tex., for appellants.
George S. Terry, W. H. Sanford, Conan Cantwell, and W. H. Jack, all of Dallas, Tex., David B. Trammell, of Fort Worth, Tex., and Cecil C. Cammack, of Houston, Tex., for appellees.
Before HOLMES, McCORD, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
There are two motions to dismiss this appeal. One is by Shasta Oil Company and others who seek a dismissal of the appeal from a summary judgment rendered by the court below dated April 15, 1942, filed and entered therein on June 1, 1942. This motion should be and is hereby sustained, because this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal from said judgment, since no appeal was taken or notice given until December 20, 1943. This was nearly nineteen months after final entry of the summary judgment, and far beyond the three months allowed by statute.1
The notice of appeal in this case reads in part as follows:
The time limit as to appeals to this court is jurisdictional, and cannot be extended by waiver or consent of the parties or even by order of the court. It is well settled that the filing of notice of appeal within ninety days after entry of judgment is mandatory, and since the notice of appeal from the summary judgment was not given within three months after June 1, 1942, this court is without jurisdiction to consider the appeal.2
The second motion is to dismiss the appeal from the final judgment in the same case entered March 14, 1943. The appeal from this judgment was also taken on December 20, 1943. Dismissal is asked on the following grounds: Extensions of time were granted by both the trial court and this court. On January 13, 1945, on motion of appellants, this court granted sixty days from that date within which to file the printed record in this court. Although the case was called for hearing on the merits on May 21, 1945, the printed record then had not been filed, and at that time the case was heard and submitted on the motions to dismiss. Only one notice of appeal was filed by appellants. It undertook to appeal from all orders and judgments that had become final in this case. The summary judgment was an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Snyder v. Buck
...of appeal goes to the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, United Drug Co. v. Helvering, 2 Cir., 1940, 108 F.2d 637; Lamb v. Shasta Oil Co., 5 Cir., 1945, 149 F.2d 729; Marten v. Hess, 6 Cir., 1949, 176 F.2d 834; Tinkoff v. West Pub. Co., 7 Cir., 1943, 138 F.2d 607; St. Luke's Hospital v. ......
-
United States v. Robinson, 16
...v. Special School District of Booneville, 8 Cir., 132 F.2d 355; Tinkoff v. West Publishing Co., 7 Cir., 138 F.2d 607; Lamb v. Shasta Oil Co., 5 Cir., 149 F.2d 729; Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Congregation Poile Tzedeck, 2 Cir., 159 F.2d 14 The allowance of an appeal months or y......
-
West v. United States
...Government again, i. e., as in the Gerringer case, cited Spengler v. Hughes Tool Co., 169 F.2d 166 (10th Cir., 1948); Lamb v. Shasta Oil Co., 149 F.2d 729 (5th Cir., 1945); and Tinkoff v. West Pub. Co., 138 F.2d 607 (7th Cir., 1943), certiorari denied, 322 U.S. 740, 64 S.Ct. 1054, 88 L.Ed. ......
-
Gerringer v. United States
...appeal." In support of that contention the Government cited Spengler v. Hughes Tool Co., 10 Cir., 1948, 169 F.2d 166, Lamb v. Shasta Oil Co., 5 Cir., 1945, 149 F.2d 729, and Tinkoff v. West Pub. Co., 7 Cir., 1943, 138 F.2d 607, certiorari denied 322 U.S. 740, 64 S.Ct. 1054, 88 L.Ed. 1574, r......