Reeves v. Harris
| Decision Date | 24 April 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 3112,3112 |
| Citation | 380 P.2d 769 |
| Parties | A. E. REEVES, Jr., Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. L. E. HARRIS, Appellee (Defendant below). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Robert Stanley Lowe, Rawlins, for appellant.
Clarence A. Brimmer, Jr., of Brimmer & Brimmer, Rawlins, for appellee.
Before PARKER, C. J., and HARNSBERGER, GRAY and McINTYRE, JJ.
The complaint here contains two claims, the first a cause of action for interpretation of an ambiguous clause in a contract for the sale of appellant's partnership interest in an insurance agency, it being asserted that in computing the sum due plaintiff under the sales contract the amounts owed by him for premiums on personal insurance written by the agency had been improperly deducted from the agency's accounts receivable; the second a cause alleging a credit due plaintiff by reason of an accountant's error at the time plaintiff purchased his interest in the business.
Defendant filed motion to dismiss complaint, and, after request for admissions, interrogatories, responses, answers, and affidavits had been presented, the court entered an order on the motion, stating that it should be treated as a motion for summary judgment under Rule 12(b), W.R.C.P.; that oral and written arguments, briefs, and the filings had been considered; that the motion was overruled as to the first claim and was granted as to the second; and that a summary judgment against plaintiff be entered upon the second cause. The order failed to contain 'express determination' that there was no just cause for delay, as provided by Rule 54(b), W.R.C.P., relating to judgment on multiple claims. From the order plaintiff has appealed.
At the time of oral argument, this court questioned the propriety of the appeal having in mind the elementary principle that the rules do not permit an appeal from a partial summary judgment, such being merely a pretrial adjudication that certain issues are deemed established for the trial of the case. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company v. United States Camo Corporation, W.D.Mo., 19 F.R.D. 495, 498; 3 Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1241 (1958); 6 Moore, Federal Practice, § 56.20 (2 ed.). (It should be noted that Wyoming adopted the modification of Rule 54(b) recommended in the 1955 report of the Federal advisory committee on the rules of civil procedure and provided in Rule 72(a), W.R.C.P., the definition of a final order, not contained in the Federal rules.) Counsel for both litigants have now submitted supplemental briefs and request that the defect be cured by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peterson v. State
...resisted the allowance of piecemeal appeals under Rule 72(a), W.R.C.P. 7 Knudson v. Hilzer, Wyo.1976, 551 P.2d 680; Reeves v. Harris, Wyo.1963, 380 P.2d 769. The civil rules of procedure are applicable to appeals in criminal cases. Rule 38, We have great difficulty trying to determine what ......
-
Arp v. State Highway Commission
...Piecemeal appeals in the ordinary proceeding are undesirable and not allowed. Knudson v. Hilzer, Wyo.1976, 551 P.2d 680; Reeves v. Harris, Wyo.1963, 380 P.2d 769. ...
-
Olmstead v. Cattle, Inc.
...policy and written in support of it. Lutheran Hospitals and Homes Society of America v. Yepsen Wyo., 469 P.2d 409 (1970); Reeves v. Harris, Wyo., 380 P.2d 769 (1963); Cf., Logan v. Stannard, Wyo., 439 P.2d 124 (1968). In Reeves v. Harris, supra, this Court, relying upon a review of the case......
-
Knudson v. Hilzer
...judgment, such being merely a pretrial adjudication that certain issues are deemed established for the trial of the case. Reeves v. Harris, Wyo.1963, 380 P.2d 769. In the sense that the summary judgment order entered in this case completely excluded the plaintiff from the trial of any issue......