Morley v. United States
| Decision Date | 22 October 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 11779.,11779. |
| Citation | 207 F.2d 654 |
| Parties | MORLEY v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Irwin A. Klar, Maurice D. Smilay, Detroit, Mich., for appellant.
Edward H. Hickey, Joseph Langbart, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before ALLEN, MARTIN and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
This appeal having been heard upon the record, briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties;
And it appearing that a default judgment against the defendant-appellant was entered on February 11, 1952; that appellant's motion to set it aside, filed on February 19, 1952 was overruled on May 12, 1952; that appellant's motion for rehearing was filed on June 27, 1952 which was not within the time provided by Rule 59, Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.; and that appellant's notice of appeal was not filed until August 5, 1952 which was not within the time provided by Rule 73(a), Rules of Civil Procedure; Marten v. Hess, 6 Cir., 176 F.2d 834;
It is ordered that the appeal be dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mueller v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of Mueller)
...Court reached the same result on the basis of Herring. Bowcut v. United States, 175 F.Supp. 218, 221–222 (D.Mont.1959), affd. 207 F.2d 654 (9th Cir.1961). The Court of Appeals did not consider the single-transaction issue, as the Government appealed primarily on other grounds, lack of clean......
-
Terrasi v. South Atlantic Lines
...distinguishable as referring to motions either not timely made or otherwise not the equivalent of the one filed here. See Morley v. United States, 6 Cir., 207 F.2d 654, pointing out the lack of timeliness of the motion for rehearing The plaintiff's appeal is based on the contention that in ......
-
Johnson v. Johnson
...by filing a notice of appeal. 28 U.S.C.A., Fed.R.Civ.Proc., Rule 73(a). Typical of numerous cases so holding are Morley v. United States (U.S.C.A. 6, 1953) 207 F.2d 654; Kahler-Ellis Company v. The Ohio Turnpike Commission (U.S.C.A. 6, 1955) 225 F.2d 922; Shotkin v. Popenhager (U.S.C.A 5, 1......
-
Pledger v. United States
...Marten v. Hess, 6 Cir., 176 F.2d 834; Deena Products Co. v. United Brick & Clay Workers of America, 6 Cir., 195 F.2d 612; Morley v. United States, 6 Cir., 207 F.2d 654. It is ordered that the appeal be and is hereby ...