U.S. v. Taylor, No. 80-1131

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore AINSWORTH, GARZA and SAM D. JOHNSON; PER CURIAM
Citation632 F.2d 530
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Warren W. TAYLOR, and Beulah P. Taylor, Defendants-Appellants. Summary Calendar. . Unit A
Docket NumberNo. 80-1131
Decision Date10 December 1980

Page 530

632 F.2d 530
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Warren W. TAYLOR, and Beulah P. Taylor, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 80-1131
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
Unit A
Dec. 10, 1980.

William E. Palmer, Dallas, Tex., for defendants-appellants.

Richard B. Vance, Asst. U.S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Before AINSWORTH, GARZA and SAM D. JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This suit involves a judgment that the United States obtained against appellant Warren Taylor and another for the unpaid balance on a promissory note that the Small Business Administration (SBA) had guaranteed. Although not raised by the parties, the dispositive issue in this case is whether an appeal properly lies before this Court. As explained below, this Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to review the district court's judgment.

On July 14, 1976, the United States obtained judgment against appellant Warren Taylor and John E. Palmer, Jr., for the unpaid balance on a promissory note that the SBA had guaranteed. Learning that these two purchased cashier's checks and deposited them into the separate account of appellant Beulah Taylor, the United States filed this suit to obtain that money, to enjoin the appellants from withdrawing the money, and to garnish the bank account.

The district court granted a temporary restraining order, but after a hearing on August 8, 1977, it denied the preliminary injunction. By counterclaim filed on November 11, 1977, and as amended on March 16, 1979, appellants contended that the suit was brought for harassment; that the U.S. Marshal who served process on Beulah Taylor abused his authority and committed wrongful and negligent acts by frightening her when the Government knew she was in poor health; that their credit standing was injured and checks were returned to her creditors; that Warren Taylor's claims against the SBA were jeopardized; that Warren Taylor lost his connubial relationship

Page 531

with his wife; and that the SBA breached its contract by refusing to issue lease guaranty policies. On April 19, 1975, appellants moved to join the SBA as a party.

The Government on December 27, 1977, and again on September 18, 1979, moved for dismissal, or alternatively summary judgment, with respect to the counterclaim. The district court judge on December 7, 1979, denied the motion to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 practice notes
  • Robinson v. Tanner, No. 85-7456
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • September 9, 1986
    ...from conflicting language found in Jetco Electronic Industries v. Gardiner, 473 F.2d 1228 (5th Cir.1973), and United States v. Taylor, 632 F.2d 530 (5th Cir.1980). In Jetco, it was found that a premature appeal was reviewable where a subsequent judgment of the district court effectively ter......
  • Norman v. Housing Authority of City of Montgomery, No. 87-7763
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • February 1, 1988
    ...a subsequent final judgment. Compare Jetco Electronic Industries v. Gardiner, 473 F.2d 1228 (5th Cir.1973), with United States v. Taylor, 632 F.2d 530 (5th Cir.1980). See also Robinson, 798 F.2d at 1385 (summarizing the holdings of Jetco and Taylor ). However, the court in Robinson also not......
  • Alcorn County, Miss. v. U.S. Interstate Supplies, Inc., No. 83-4015
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • May 10, 1984
    ...whether the request for attorney's fees was integral to the merits of the state law claims made by the county. 6 United States v. Taylor, 632 F.2d 530, 531 (5th Cir. Unit A 1980) ("[F]inal judgment [does not] retroactively validate the premature notice of appeal.") citing Kirtland......
  • W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. v. Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts & Co., No. 07-13114.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • April 29, 2009
    ...unappealable"). Similarly, an order permitting or denying joinder of parties is typically interlocutory. See United States v. Taylor, 632 F.2d 530, 531 (5th Cir. Unit A 1980)6 (citing Fowler v. Merry, 468 F.2d 242, 243 (10th Cir.1972) ("Although an order refusing or permitting the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 cases
  • Robinson v. Tanner, No. 85-7456
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • September 9, 1986
    ...from conflicting language found in Jetco Electronic Industries v. Gardiner, 473 F.2d 1228 (5th Cir.1973), and United States v. Taylor, 632 F.2d 530 (5th Cir.1980). In Jetco, it was found that a premature appeal was reviewable where a subsequent judgment of the district court effectively ter......
  • Norman v. Housing Authority of City of Montgomery, No. 87-7763
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • February 1, 1988
    ...a subsequent final judgment. Compare Jetco Electronic Industries v. Gardiner, 473 F.2d 1228 (5th Cir.1973), with United States v. Taylor, 632 F.2d 530 (5th Cir.1980). See also Robinson, 798 F.2d at 1385 (summarizing the holdings of Jetco and Taylor ). However, the court in Robinson also not......
  • Alcorn County, Miss. v. U.S. Interstate Supplies, Inc., No. 83-4015
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • May 10, 1984
    ...whether the request for attorney's fees was integral to the merits of the state law claims made by the county. 6 United States v. Taylor, 632 F.2d 530, 531 (5th Cir. Unit A 1980) ("[F]inal judgment [does not] retroactively validate the premature notice of appeal.") citing Kirtland v. J. Ray......
  • W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. v. Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts & Co., No. 07-13114.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • April 29, 2009
    ...and unappealable"). Similarly, an order permitting or denying joinder of parties is typically interlocutory. See United States v. Taylor, 632 F.2d 530, 531 (5th Cir. Unit A 1980)6 (citing Fowler v. Merry, 468 F.2d 242, 243 (10th Cir.1972) ("Although an order refusing or permitting the filin......
  • 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