Sentinel Co. v. Dinwiddie

Decision Date28 May 1930
Docket NumberNo. 4347.,4347.
Citation41 F.2d 57
PartiesSENTINEL CO. v. DINWIDDIE.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Charles B. Quarles, of Milwaukee, Wis., for appellant.

Aaron B. Rosenthal, of Milwaukee, Wis., for appellee.

Before EVANS, PAGE, and SPARKS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellee brought this action to recover damages occasioned by appellant's publication of an alleged libel. The verdict of the jury in appellee's favor was, on his motion, set aside as inadequate and a new trial granted. This appeal is from the order granting the new trial.

Appellee moves this court to dismiss the appeal because the order is not an appealable one. Upon the authority of Dry Dock E. B. & B. R. Co. v. Petkunas (C. C. A.) 261 F. 988; Wright v. Taft-Peirce Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.) 287 F. 131; and Fort Dodge Portland Cement Corp. v. Monk (C. C. A.) 276 F. 113, the motion must be granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Ford Motor Co. v. Busam Motor Sales, 11100.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 8 Diciembre 1950
    ...R. Association, 8 Cir., 155 F.2d 807; Florini v. Stegner, 3 Cir., 82 F.2d 708; Long v. Davis, 9 Cir., 169 F.2d 982; Sentinel Co. v. Dinwiddie, 7 Cir., 41 F.2d 57. Under such circumstances, the final judgment has been set aside and there is no existing judgment from which an appeal can be ta......
  • Grazia v. Anderson., 587.
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • 15 Marzo 1948
    ...37 L.Ed. 438; Tracy v. Holcombe, 24 How. 426, 16 L.Ed. 742; East Erie Commercial R. Co. v. Denial, 3 Cir., 66 F.2d 555; Sentinel Co. v. Dinwiddie, 7 Cir., 41 F.2d 57; Wright v. Taft-Pierce Mfg. Co., 1 Cir., 287 Fed. 131; Farrell v. First Nat. Bank, 3 Cir., 254 F.2d 801; Cloquet Lumber Co. v......
  • Long v. Davis, 12024.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 21 Septiembre 1948
    ...Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 225(a),1 1946 Edition, then in effect, and hence was not appealable. The motion is well founded. Sentinel v. Dinwiddie, 7 Cir., 41 F.2d 57; Hunt v. United States, 10 Cir., 53 F. 2d 333; East Erie Commercial Co. v. Denial, 3 Cir., 66 F.2d 555; Frank Mercantile Corp. v. Pr......
  • Levi Strauss Realty Co. v. United States, 6016.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 20 Junio 1930
  • 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