Steward v. Atlantic Refining Company, 11883-11886.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
Writing for the CourtGOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and KALODNER, Circuit
Citation235 F.2d 570
PartiesGeorge W. STEWARD, Jr., Appellant, v. The ATLANTIC REFINING COMPANY Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, TERMINAL TRANSPORT COMPANY and Charles T. Banks, Third-Party Defendants. Elmer ROBINSON, Appellant, v. The ATLANTIC REFINING COMPANY, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, TERMINAL TRANSPORT COMPANY and Charles T. Banks, Third-Party Defendants. Kenneth DAVIS, Appellant, v. The ATLANTIC REFINING COMPANY, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, TERMINAL TRANSPORT COMPANY and Charles T. Banks, Third-Party Defendants. Edward W. HULTZ, Appellant, v. The ATLANTIC REFINING COMPANY, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, TERMINAL TRANSPORT COMPANY and Charles T. Banks, Third-Party Defendants.
Docket NumberNo. 11883-11886.,11883-11886.
Decision Date09 July 1956

235 F.2d 570 (1956)

George W. STEWARD, Jr., Appellant,
v.
The ATLANTIC REFINING COMPANY Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff,
TERMINAL TRANSPORT COMPANY and Charles T. Banks, Third-Party Defendants.

Elmer ROBINSON, Appellant,
v.
The ATLANTIC REFINING COMPANY, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff,
TERMINAL TRANSPORT COMPANY and Charles T. Banks, Third-Party Defendants.

Kenneth DAVIS, Appellant,
v.
The ATLANTIC REFINING COMPANY, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff,
TERMINAL TRANSPORT COMPANY and Charles T. Banks, Third-Party Defendants.

Edward W. HULTZ, Appellant,
v.
The ATLANTIC REFINING COMPANY, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff,
TERMINAL TRANSPORT COMPANY and Charles T. Banks, Third-Party Defendants.

Nos. 11883-11886.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued May 7, 1956.

Decided July 9, 1956.


235 F.2d 571

George E. Beechwood, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants.

Otto Wolff, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., for The Atlantic Refining Co.

Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.

McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge.

Appellee has moved to dismiss these appeals as premature, on the ground that certain motions remain undetermined in the district court. Judgments were there entered for defendant-appellee on December 15, 1955. On December 24, 1955 appellants filed a motion to set aside the jury's answers to interrogatories, motion for new trial, and motion to set aside the judgments in favor of the defendant and to enter judgments in favor of the plaintiffs. Those motions were not served on appellee until December 28, 1955, more than ten days after the judgments had been entered. On January 4, 1956 it moved to strike them as served out of time. While the latter motions were still pending appellants, on January 13, 1956, filed notices of appeal.

The motion to dismiss (applying to all four appeals) is founded on the theory that in order for this court to have jurisdiction the face of the docket must show the filed motions have been disposed of by definite orders made and entered in due form. The docket in these cases shows the motions filed but nothing further regarding them. Accordingly, it is argued, the appeals are subject to dismissal.

The motions to set aside the jury's answers to the court's interrogatories come under Rule 52(b), 28 U.S.C., to amend the findings of the trial court. Greenwood v. Greenwood, 3 Cir., 234 F. 2d 276. As such they must be served not

235 F.2d 572
later than ten days after the entry of the judgments, Rule...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • Starns v. Avent, Civ. A. No. 86-86-B.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Middle District of Louisiana
    • January 24, 1989
    ...Gribble v. Harris, 625 F.2d 1173, 1174 (5th Cir.1980); Flint v. Howard, 464 F.2d 1084 (1st Cir.1972); Steward v. Atlantic Ref. Co., 235 F.2d 570 (3d Cir.1956); Torockio v. Chamberlain Mfg. Co., 56 F.R.D. 82, 85 n. 6 (W.D.Pa.1972), aff'd without opinion, 474 F.2d 1340 (3d Cir.1973). 33 Leish......
  • Wallace v. Warehouse Employees Union, 83-885.
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • October 12, 1984
    ...do not address whether Rule 6(e) extends the time for filing a motion for reconsideration. One opinion, Steward v. Atlantic Refining Co., 235 F.2d 570 (3d Cir. 1956), holds that the mere filing with the court, without service upon the opposing parties, of a motion for a new trial and to set......
  • State v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, Inc., 42252
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • September 28, 1972
    ...of fact or to make additional findings and to amend the judgment accordingly, pursuant to CR 52(b). See Stewart v. Atlantic Ref. Co., 235 F.2d 570, 571 (3d Cir. Page 266 1956); Greenwood v. Greenwood, 234 F.2d 276, 278 (3d Cir. 1956). When error is assigned to an order denying such a motion......
  • Boggs v. Settle, 12329
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • November 23, 1965
    ...(10th Cir.); Breast. Admr. v. Philadelphia Transportation[150 W.Va. 335] Co., 273 F.2d 22 (3rd Cir.); Steward v. Atlantic Refining Co., 235 F.2d 570 (3rd Cir.); Hulson v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co., 289 F.2d 726 (7th Cir.). It is quite true that, under R.C.P. 5(b), service by......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • Starns v. Avent, Civ. A. No. 86-86-B.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Middle District of Louisiana
    • January 24, 1989
    ...Gribble v. Harris, 625 F.2d 1173, 1174 (5th Cir.1980); Flint v. Howard, 464 F.2d 1084 (1st Cir.1972); Steward v. Atlantic Ref. Co., 235 F.2d 570 (3d Cir.1956); Torockio v. Chamberlain Mfg. Co., 56 F.R.D. 82, 85 n. 6 (W.D.Pa.1972), aff'd without opinion, 474 F.2d 1340 (3d Cir.1973). 33 Leish......
  • Wallace v. Warehouse Employees Union, 83-885.
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • October 12, 1984
    ...do not address whether Rule 6(e) extends the time for filing a motion for reconsideration. One opinion, Steward v. Atlantic Refining Co., 235 F.2d 570 (3d Cir. 1956), holds that the mere filing with the court, without service upon the opposing parties, of a motion for a new trial and to set......
  • State v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, Inc., 42252
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • September 28, 1972
    ...of fact or to make additional findings and to amend the judgment accordingly, pursuant to CR 52(b). See Stewart v. Atlantic Ref. Co., 235 F.2d 570, 571 (3d Cir. Page 266 1956); Greenwood v. Greenwood, 234 F.2d 276, 278 (3d Cir. 1956). When error is assigned to an order denying such a motion......
  • Boggs v. Settle, 12329
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • November 23, 1965
    ...(10th Cir.); Breast. Admr. v. Philadelphia Transportation[150 W.Va. 335] Co., 273 F.2d 22 (3rd Cir.); Steward v. Atlantic Refining Co., 235 F.2d 570 (3rd Cir.); Hulson v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co., 289 F.2d 726 (7th Cir.). It is quite true that, under R.C.P. 5(b), service by......
  • 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