State Tax Commission of Utah v. United States
| Decision Date | 21 June 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 2671.,2671. |
| Parties | STATE TAX COMMISSION OF UTAH v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
W. L. Skanchy, of Salt Lake City, Utah (Grover A. Giles, J. Lambert Gibson, and Grant A. Brown, all of Salt Lake City, Utah, on the brief), for appellant.
Wilma C. Martin, Atty., Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C. (Norman M. Littell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dan B. Shields, U. S. Atty., of Salt Lake City, Utah, and Vernon L. Wilkinson, Atty., Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRATTON, HUXMAN and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.
The United States instituted this action to acquire by condemnation certain land in Box Elder County, Utah. The county was a party defendant. Judgment was entered reciting that the United States took possession of the premises on March 2, 1942, determining that the owners were liable for the taxes only for January and February, and adjudging that on payment of one-sixth of the taxes for that year each tract should be released of all lien for such taxes. Up to the time of the entry of the judgment, the State Tax Commission of Utah was not a party to the action; but thereafter it filed in the cause a petition challenging the correctness of the judgment in respect of the proration of the taxes and praying that it be vacated and set aside. An order was entered denying the petition, and the Commission appealed.
Laying aside certain exceptions which do not have material bearing here, our jurisdiction is limited to review by appeal of final decisions. Reeves v. Beardall, 316 U. S. 283, 62 S.Ct. 1085, 86 L.Ed. 1478; Crutcher v. Joyce, 10 Cir., 134 F.2d 809.
This appeal was expressly taken from the order denying the petition to vacate and set aside the judgment. It was not from the judgment. In ordinary circumstances such as those presented here, an appeal will not lie from an order refusing to vacate or set aside a prior judgment or decree. Brockett v. Brockett, 2 How. 238, 11 L.Ed. 251; Wylie v. Coxe, 14 How. 1, 14 L.Ed. 301; McMicken v. Perin, 18 How. 507, 15 L.Ed. 504; Willis v. Davis, 6 Cir., 184 F. 889; International Bank v. Securities Corporation of District of Columbia, 59 App.D.C. 72, 32 F.2d 968; Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Hudson Auto Supply Co., D.C., 49 F.2d 654; Smith v. Gorlo, 7 Cir., 52 F.2d 848; Glinski v. United States 7 Cir., 93 F.2d 418; Bensen v. United States, 9 Cir., 93 F.2d 749; Burns v. Ender Coal & Coke Co., 7...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Skirvin v. Mesta
...Reeves v. Beardall, 316 U.S. 283, 62 S.Ct. 1085, 86 L.Ed. 1478; Crutcher v. Joyce, 10 Cir., 134 F.2d 809; State Tax Commission of Utah v. United States, 10 Cir., 136 F.2d 903. An order denying an affidavit of disqualification is neither an interlocutory order from which a separate appeal wi......
-
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Jackson, 5220.
...only final decisions of the district courts. Reeves v. Beardall, 316 U.S. 283, 62 S.Ct. 1085, 86 L.Ed. 1478; State Tax Commission of Utah v. United States, 10 Cir., 136 F.2d 903; Breeding Motor Freight Lines v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 10 Cir., 172 F.2d 416, certiorari denied, 338 U.S.......
-
Hopkins v. McClure
...meaning of 128(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 225(a). Taylor v. United States, 10 Cir., 145 F.2d 641; State Tax Commission of Utah v. United States, 10 Cir., 136 F.2d 903; Crutcher v. Joyce, 10 Cir., 134 F.2d 909; Glinski v. United States, 7 Cir., 93 F. 2d 418. However, where as her......
-
Breeding Motor Fr. Lines v. Reconstruction Finance Corp.
...lies only from a final order or judgment. Reeves v. Beardall, 316 U.S. 283, 62 S.Ct. 1085, 86 L.Ed. 1478; State Tax Commission of Utah v. United States, 10 Cir., 136 F.2d 903. And a finding of fact or a conclusion of law is not such a final order or The appeal of the Reconstruction Finance ......