Milton v. United States, 9851.
| Decision Date | 09 June 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 9851.,9851. |
| Citation | 120 F.2d 794 |
| Parties | MILTON v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Philo Coco, of Marksville, La., for appellant.
Malcolm E. Lafargue, U. S. Atty., and John A. Patin, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Shreveport, La., and Julius C. Martin, Director, Bureau of War Risk Litigation, Department of Justice, Wilbur C. Pickett, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., and Fendall Marbury, Sp. Atty., Department of Justice, all of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before FOSTER, SIBLEY, and HUTCHESON, Circuit Judges.
Appellant brought this suit to recover on a policy of war risk insurance issued by the United States while he was in service. No premiums were paid after his discharge in 1919 but he alleged the policy had matured by reason of his total and permanent disability, occurring while the policy was in force. The suit was dismissed on the ground that it was filed too late, we reversed that judgment and returned the case to the District Court for a trial on the merits. Milton v. United States, 5 Cir., 105 F.2d 253. The case was then tried to a jury and resulted in a verdict for the United States. Appellant filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled. He then appealed from the order denying the motion for a new trial, contending that was a final judgment. The United States has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground the overruling of the motion for a new trial was not a final decision appealable to this court, under the provisions of Judicial Code § 128, 28 U.S.C.A. § 225. In support of this motion Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 533, 47 S.Ct. 186, 71 L.Ed. 394 is cited.
The case presents unusual features. A judgment is final for the purpose of appeal when it terminates the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined. Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 58 S.Ct. 164, 82 L. Ed. 204. The overruling of a motion for a new trial is not a final judgment within the meaning of judicial Code 128, fixing our appellate jurisdiction in cases of this kind. On the other hand, there could be no doubt the verdict of the jury and the overruling of the motion for a new trial together constitute a final determination of the merits of the case. It does not appear the judge gave any directions in regard to the entering of the judgment. Other than that, there was nothing further for the judge to do. Under the provisions of Rule 58, Rules...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richards v. United States
...by the court." See Notes of Advisory Committee on Amendments to Rules, appended to Rule 58, F.R.Civ.P. in 28 U. S.C.A.; Milton v. United States, 5 Cir., 120 F.2d 794. Cf. Hill v. Hawes, 320 U. S. 520, 64 S.Ct. 334, 88 L.Ed. 2 We recognize, of course, that the time of perfecting an appeal is......
-
Ford Motor Co. v. Busam Motor Sales, 11100.
...appeal is properly taken from the judgment previously entered rather than from the order which refused to set it aside. Milton v. United States, 5 Cir., 120 F.2d 794; Gersing v. Chafitz, 77 U.S.App.D. C. 38, 133 F.2d 384; Bass v. B. & O. Terminal R. Co., 7 Cir., 142 F.2d Applying the same g......
-
Bros Incorporated v. WE Grace Manufacturing Company
...1963, 312 F.2d 385, 386. 5 Livesay Window Co. v. Livesay Industries, Inc., 5 Cir., 1958, 251 F.2d 469, 471. 6 But see Milton v. United States, 5 Cir., 1941, 120 F.2d 794; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Mims, 5 Cir., 1952, 199 F.2d 582; Kanatser v. Chrysler Corp., 10 Cir., 1952, 195 F.2d 104;......
-
United States v. Twin City Power Company of Georgia
...the Supreme Court January 6, 1958, 78 S.Ct. 674; and on many other cases. Twin City relies also on that case and on Milton v. United States, 5 Cir., 1941, 120 F.2d 794; Woods v. Nicholas, 10 Cir., 1947, 163 F.2d 615; Matteson v. United States, 2 Cir., 1956, 240 F.2d 517; Rules 58 and 73 of ......