U.S. v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 10 December 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-1131,80-1131 |
| Citation | 632 F.2d 530 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Warren W. TAYLOR, and Beulah P. Taylor, Defendants-Appellants. Summary Calendar. . Unit A |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
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.
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 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 join the SBA and granted the Government's second motion to dismiss the counterclaim. The court held that the United States was immune to suit on the counterclaims; that the Government had the right to file the lawsuit; that process was validly issued and served; that Texas law did not recognize a cause of action for the alleged negligent acts; and that the counterclaim against the SBA was not compulsory and should have first been submitted to the General Accounting Office.
Appella...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. Tanner
...stems 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 effective......
-
Norman v. Housing Authority of City of Montgomery, 87-7763
...by 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 ......
-
Alcorn County, Miss. v. U.S. Interstate Supplies, Inc.
...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.
...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 filing of......