Satterlee v. Harris
| Decision Date | 18 July 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 600.,600. |
| Citation | 60 F.2d 490 |
| Parties | SATTERLEE et al. v. HARRIS et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
H. R. Duncan, of Tulsa, Okl. (L. M. Poe, E. J. Lundy, and R. E. Morgan, all of Tulsa, Okl., on the brief), for appellants.
Villard Martin and F. E. Riddle, both of Tulsa, Okl. (C. A. Coakley, Geo. S. Ramsey, Edgar A. De Meules, and Garrett Logan, all of Tulsa, Okl., on the brief), for appellees.
Before COTTERAL, PHILLIPS, and McDERMOTT, Circuit Judges.
In an equity receivership, the trial court entered an order requiring all creditors of the corporation to file their claims within a stated period, failing which they should be barred from asserting the same against the receiver. Appellants filed their separate claims, to which the receiver filed his objections. A special master was appointed to hear all contested claims and to report thereon. Some evidence was taken on appellants' claims before the master, and upon appellants' application, further hearings were continued from time to time. Thereupon the appellants asked to dismiss their claims without prejudice, to which the receiver objected. The trial court found the facts as stated; that expense had been incurred in connection with the hearing of such claims prior to the application to dismiss; that the court must ascertain the obligations of the corporation in order to determine its future course of action; and that it would be prejudicial to the rights of the corporation to grant the application. The application to dismiss was accordingly denied, and the special master directed to reset the claims for hearing. This appeal is from that order. The record does not disclose what further proceedings, if any, were had on the claims.
Upon the oral argument, the court suggested the question of its jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. That question has now been briefed, and we are of the opinion that the order complained of is not appealable. In Hunt v. United States, 53 F.(2d) 333, this court said:
The order appealed from was not a final decision; the order was that the cause proceed to a final decision. Our consideration of this appeal is barred by the language of the governing statute, and by the reasons back of it. Its purpose is to prevent repeated appeals in the same litigation and to promote expedition in the adjudication of controversies by providing that but one appeal should be had, and that from the final decision. Upon that appeal, the correctness of interlocutory rulings, such as the one here challenged, can be tested by assigning error on such rulings. For a case closely similar on its facts, see Otto-Johnson Merc. Co. v. Garcie, 24 N. M. 356, 174 P. 422. Jurisdiction to determine the appeal not having been conferred by statute, it cannot be conferred by consent of the parties. American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. v. New York Rys. Co. (C. C. A. 2) 282 F. 523.
The authorities relied upon by appellants are not persuasive. Ex parte Skinner & Eddy Corporation, 265 U. S. 86, 44 S. Ct. 446, 68 L. Ed. 912, was an original proceeding in mandamus. The propriety of the use of an extraordinary writ, and the appealability of an interlocutory order, are unrelated questions. In Scholl Mfg. Co. v. Rodgers (C. C. A. 8) 51 F.(2d) 971, the question...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deckert v. Independence Shares Corporation Deckert v. Pennsylvania Co For Insurances On Lives and Granting Annuities
...6 Cir., 108 F.2d 39; Rodriguez v. Arosemena, 5 Cir., 91 F.2d 219; Kneberg v. H. L. Green Co., Inc., 7 Cir., 89 F.2d 100; Satterlee v. Harris, 10 Cir., 60 F.2d 490. Respondents' motions sought to dismiss the bill because it failed to state any cause of action and because the District Court l......
-
United States v. Kansas City, Kan.
...are appealable. 28 U.S. C.A. § 225; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 54(a), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c; Saterlee v. Harris, 10 Cir., 60 F.2d 490; Demulso Corp. v. Tretolite Co., et al., 10 Cir., 74 F.2d 805; Crutcher v. Joyce, 10 Cir., 134 F.2d 809; Hopkins v. McClure, 10 Cir.......
-
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Jackson, 5220.
...appeal from the final judgment. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Wolf Brothers & Co., 240 U.S. 251, 36 S.Ct. 269, 60 L.Ed. 629; Satterlee v. Harris, 10 Cir., 60 F.2d 490; Victor Talking Machine Co. v. George, 3 Cir., 105 F.2d 697, certiorari denied, 308 U.S. 611, 60 S.Ct. 176, 84 L.Ed. 511. By ap......
-
De Long v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co.
...It is not, therefore, authority binding upon this court. Webster v. Fall, 266 U.S. 507, 45 S.Ct. 148, 69 L.Ed. 411; Satterlee et al. v. Harris et al., 10 Cir., 60 F.2d 490. We are cited, and can find, no Florida decision adjudicating the question, and are, therefore, at liberty to apply the......