UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CHARLES R. JOYCE & SON, INC. v. FA Baehner, Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 October 1962 |
| Docket Number | Docket 27632.,No. 87,87 |
| Citation | 309 F.2d 154 |
| Parties | The UNITED STATES of America for the Use and Benefit of CHARLES R. JOYCE & SON, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. F. A. BAEHNER, INC., Defendant, and Hambly Construction Company, Inc. and National Surety Corporation, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Tillott & LaFleche, Schenectady, N. Y. (Jacob M. Frankel, Schenectady, N. Y., of counsel), for defendants-appellants.
Newkirk & DiFabio, Albany, N. Y. (Leslie F. Couch, Albany, N. Y., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.
Before WATERMAN, HAYS and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.
Hambly Construction Company. Inc., a defendant below, was a prime contractor on a United States government construction project, and the National Surety Corporation was surety that the contractor would perform the work properly and would pay the bills required to be paid, including those payable under the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. § 270b.
The use-plaintiff below, Charles R. Joyce & Son, Inc., furnished a ventilation system to one of the prime contractor's subcontractors, F. A. Baehner, Inc., now in bankruptcy. Claiming full compliance with the conditions set forth in 40 U.S.C. § 270b and an unpaid contract price due it of $7,605 plaintiff brought its action under that section against the prime contractor and the surety.
After further pleadings the plaintiff-appellee moved for summary judgment in accord with the provisions of Rule 56(a), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. The court below granted the motion for the amount he found from the record to be undisputed, a sum of $5,890.60. He further, in a memorandum-decision, stated that a "balance of $1,715.00 is the only amount in sufficient controversy and shall remain for trial." (Emphasis supplied.)
The judgment order reads:
"Ordered and Adjudged that the balance claimed in the Complaint which remains in controversy, to wit, the sum of Seventeen hundred fifteen ($1,715.00) Dollars shall remain for trial."
Appellant stated in its notice of appeal that the order appealed from "awarded partial summary judgment to the use-plaintiff in the sum of $5,890.60," and "directed that a trial be held to determine what further sums, if any, might be due the use-plaintiff."
At argument we made inquiries of counsel to learn what disposition, if any, had been had of the $1,715.00 disputed item, and apparently it remains in dispute.
Under well-settled rules a partial summary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Estate of Pearce
...whenever it may be presented or recognized. Atkins, Kroll (Guam) Ltd. v. Cabrera, 277 F.2d 922 (9th Cir. 1960); United States v. Baehner, 309 F.2d 154, 155 (2d Cir. 1962); See also United States v. Corrick, 298 U.S. 435, 440, 56 S.Ct. 829, 80 L.Ed. 1263 5 The Seventh Circuit has also held t......
-
Spencer, White & Prentis Inc. of Conn. v. Pfizer Inc.
...the absence of it even though the parties have not raised the question. United States for Use and Benefit of Charles R. Joyce & Son, Inc. v. F. A. Baehner, Inc., 309 F.2d 154 (2d Cir. 1962); Flegenheimer v. Manitoba Sugar Co., Ltd., 182 F.2d 742 (2d Cir. 1950); Audi Vision, Inc. v. RCA Mfg.......
-
Adirondack Ry. Corp., In re
...the issue of our appellate jurisdiction has not been considered by the parties, we are obliged to do so. See United States v. F.A. Baehner, Inc., 309 F.2d 154, 155 (2d Cir.1962). We start by noticing that the rulings in the order sought to be appealed in this case are interlocutory. One rul......
-
Friedman v. Meyers
...releases obtained by defendants from other investors. This ruling, being interlocutory, is not appealable. See United States v. F. A. Baehner, Inc., 309 F.2d 154 (2d Cir. 1962); Rabekoff v. Lazere & Co., 323 F.2d 865 (2d Cir. ...