Lehrer v. McCLOSKEY HOMES, No. 11954.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation242 F.2d 190
PartiesLewis LEHRER and Eleanor B. Lehrer, His Wife, Appellants, v. McCLOSKEY HOMES, Inc. and McCloskey & Co. of Florida.
Docket NumberNo. 11954.
Decision Date13 March 1957

242 F.2d 190 (1957)

Lewis LEHRER and Eleanor B. Lehrer, His Wife, Appellants,
v.
McCLOSKEY HOMES, Inc. and McCloskey & Co. of Florida.

No. 11954.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued December 3, 1956.

Decided March 13, 1957.


Donald M. Bowman, Philadelphia, Pa., (Bernard J. Korman and Gold & Bowman, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellants.

J. Dress Pannell, Harrisburg, Pa. (Lawrence D. Biele, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and MARIS, Circuit Judge, and KRAFT, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs-appellants have presented more than one claim for relief in their complaint, viz., a claim against McCloskey Homes, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and a claim against McCloskey & Co. of Florida, a Florida corporation. The order of the court below dismissing the complaint as to McCloskey Homes, Inc., did not constitute a final and appealable

242 F.2d 191
judgment under Rule 54(b), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C., because the express determination that there was no just reason for delay and the express direction for the entry of judgment were not made by the court below as the rule requires. In so stating we desire to make plain that no application was made to the court below for judgment in the terms required by Rule 54(b). We are without power to entertain the appeal. See District 65 etc. v. McKague, 3 Cir., 1954, 216 F.2d 153 and Shipley Corp. v. Leonard Marcus Co., 3 Cir., 1954, 214 F. 2d 493.

Should the court below see fit to make the determination and the order required by Rule 54(b) and an appeal were then taken to this court, we could dispose of the appeal on its merits on the present record, enlarged by the determination and order referred to in the preceding paragraph, by submission to the present panel. Further oral argument would be obviated and time saved.

The appeal will be dismissed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • RePass v. Vreeland, No. 15297.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • January 31, 1966
    ...Danecki, 289 F.2d 314 (C.A.3, 1961); Tomlinson v. Trustees of Univ. of Pa., 266 F.2d 569 (C.A.3, 1959); Lehrer v. McCloskey Homes, Inc., 242 F.2d 190 (C.A.3, 1957); District 65, etc. v. McKague, 216 F.2d 153 (C.A.3, 1954); Shipley Corp. v. Leonard Marcus Co., 214 F.2d 493 (C.A.3, 1954); Ett......
  • Gallon v. LLOYD-THOMAS COMPANY, No. 15944.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • November 20, 1958
    ...Importers, 8 Cir., 216 F.2d 206; Reed v. National Old Line Insurance Co., 5 Cir., 239 F.2d 594; Lehrer v. McCloskey Homes, Inc., 3 Cir., 242 F.2d 190; Id., 3 Cir., 245 F.2d When the case is ripe for appeal, this court will entertain the second appeal on the record and briefs prepared for th......
  • Calore Rigging Corp. v. Sterling Engineering & Const. Co., No. 550-A
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • February 13, 1969
    ...there is no separate statutory right of appeal, would render the determination unappealable. Lehrer v. McCloskey Homes, Inc., 3 Cir., 242 F.2d 190, 191; Reed v. National Old Line Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 239 F.2d 594, 596. Here, however, he was not requested to make the requisite rulings and the r......
  • Turtle v. Institute for Resource Management, Inc., No. 71-1251.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • January 22, 1973
    ...Co., 441 F.2d 57 (5th Cir. 1971) ; Levin v. Wear-Ever Aluminum, Inc., 427 F.2d 847, 848 (3d Cir. 1970) ; Lehrer v. McCloskey Homes, Inc., 242 F.2d 190 (3d Cir. 1957), judgment rev'd, 245 F.2d 11 (3d Cir. 1957), or because defendant Block's counterclaim is still pending before the District C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • RePass v. Vreeland, No. 15297.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • January 31, 1966
    ...Danecki, 289 F.2d 314 (C.A.3, 1961); Tomlinson v. Trustees of Univ. of Pa., 266 F.2d 569 (C.A.3, 1959); Lehrer v. McCloskey Homes, Inc., 242 F.2d 190 (C.A.3, 1957); District 65, etc. v. McKague, 216 F.2d 153 (C.A.3, 1954); Shipley Corp. v. Leonard Marcus Co., 214 F.2d 493 (C.A.3, 1954); Ett......
  • Gallon v. LLOYD-THOMAS COMPANY, No. 15944.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • November 20, 1958
    ...Importers, 8 Cir., 216 F.2d 206; Reed v. National Old Line Insurance Co., 5 Cir., 239 F.2d 594; Lehrer v. McCloskey Homes, Inc., 3 Cir., 242 F.2d 190; Id., 3 Cir., 245 F.2d When the case is ripe for appeal, this court will entertain the second appeal on the record and briefs prepared for th......
  • Calore Rigging Corp. v. Sterling Engineering & Const. Co., No. 550-A
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • February 13, 1969
    ...there is no separate statutory right of appeal, would render the determination unappealable. Lehrer v. McCloskey Homes, Inc., 3 Cir., 242 F.2d 190, 191; Reed v. National Old Line Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 239 F.2d 594, 596. Here, however, he was not requested to make the requisite rulings and the r......
  • Turtle v. Institute for Resource Management, Inc., No. 71-1251.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • January 22, 1973
    ...Co., 441 F.2d 57 (5th Cir. 1971) ; Levin v. Wear-Ever Aluminum, Inc., 427 F.2d 847, 848 (3d Cir. 1970) ; Lehrer v. McCloskey Homes, Inc., 242 F.2d 190 (3d Cir. 1957), judgment rev'd, 245 F.2d 11 (3d Cir. 1957), or because defendant Block's counterclaim is still pending before the District C......
  • 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