Turner v. HMH Publishing Co.
| Decision Date | 07 February 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 21027.,21027. |
| Citation | 328 F.2d 136 |
| Parties | Othal L. TURNER and On-The-Town, Inc., d/b/a Atlanta's Playboy Club, Appellants, v. HMH PUBLISHING CO., Inc., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Henry M. Hatcher, Jr., Hatcher & Irvin, Atlanta, Ga., for appellants.
Milton I. Shadur, Chicago, Ill., Hoke Smith, Atlanta, Ga., R. Howard Goldsmith, Chicago, Ill., Herbert A. Ringel, Atlanta, Ga., Smith, Field, Ringel, Martin & Carr, Atlanta, Ga., Devoe, Shadur, Mikva & Plotkin, Schneider, Dressler, Goldsmith & Clement, Chicago, Ill., of counsel, for appellees.
Before RIVES, WISDOM and BELL, Circuit Judges.
On consideration of the motion of the appellees to dismiss the appeal, it appears that on the 13th day of September 1963 the district court granted an interlocutory injunction against the appellants and that this Court has jurisdiction of an appeal from that order under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292. On September 19 the defendants, appellants, filed in the district court a motion to amend said judgment and a brief in support of that motion. On the same day they filed a notice of appeal. On October 17 the court entered an order amending the order granting an interlocutory injunction. No subsequent notice of appeal was filed.
The appellants concede that if this appeal were from a final decision under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291, then the time for appeal prescribed by Rule 73(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., would be terminated by a timely motion under Rules 50(b), 52(b) or 59, and that the present appeal would be premature. See United States v. Crescent Amusement Co., 1944, 323 U.S. 173, 65 S.Ct. 254, 89 L.Ed. 160; Zimmern v. United States, 1936, 298 U.S. 167, 56 S.Ct. 706, 80 L.Ed. 1118; United States v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 5 Cir. 1962, 299 F.2d 74. Appellants urge that the rule is different in the case of an appeal under section 1292 from an order granting an interlocutory injunction. Rule 52(a) is made expressly applicable to such an order and we see no reason why Rule 52(b) should not also be applicable, nor why the time for appeal prescribed by Rule 73(a) should not apply to such an order. See Lohr v. United States, 5 Cir. 1959, 264 F.2d 619, 620, 621; 3A Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, Rules Edition, sections 1552, 1553. In passing on the motion to amend the judgment, the district court was not pursuing the authority granted by Rule 62(c) to maintain the status quo pending appeal. Once an appeal is taken, jurisdiction passes to the appellate court and the district court could not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coeur D'Alene Turf Club, Inc. v. Cogswell
...59(e), 73(a). Leishman v. Associated Wholesale Electric Co., 318 U.S. 203, 63 S.Ct. 543, 87 L.Ed. 714 (1943); Turner v. HMH Publishing Co., 328 F.2d 136 (5th Cir. 1964); Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Mouat, 184 F.2d 44, 48 (9th Cir. 1950); Healy v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 181 F.2d 934 (3rd C......
-
Armstrong v. O'CONNELL
...to take any action which might be inconsistent with or in derogation of the appellate court's jurisdiction. Turner v. HMH Publishing Co., 328 F.2d 136, 137 (5th Cir. 1964). Rule 62 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure recognizes, however, that a trial court may suspend or modify the oper......
-
Kirtland v. J. Ray McDermott & Co.
...v. Landrieu, supra. If the appeal did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction because it was premature, Turner v. HMH Publishing Co., 5 Cir. 1964, 328 F.2d 136, 7 then there has never been a valid appeal from a final judgment. 8 Nor could the parties now timely appeal from the July 2......
-
United Parcel Serv. v. United States Postal Serv.
...(district court in bankruptcy case powerless to vacate interlocutory order from which appeal had been taken); Turner v. HMH Publishing Company, 328 F.2d 136 (5th Cir. 1964) (when, after entry of preliminary injunction, motion to amend and then notice of appeal are filed on same day, pendenc......