United States v. Paul Hardeman, Inc.
| Decision Date | 12 September 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 19855.,19855. |
| Citation | 320 F.2d 115 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America for the Use and Benefit of INDUSTRIAL INSTRUMENT CORPORATION, Appellant, v. PAUL HARDEMAN, INC., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Dave McNeill, Jr., Houston, Tex., Vinson, Elkins, Weems & Searls, Joe E. Edwards, Houston, Tex., of counsel, for appellant.
John B. Pope, Wagstaff, Harwell, Alvis & Pope, Abilene, Tex., Arnold M. Schwartz, Schwartz & Sandler, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees Paul Hardeman, Inc., and Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
James W. Wilson, Powell, Rauhut, McGinnis, Reavley & Lochridge, Austin, Tex., Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel, for appellee CompuDyne Corporation.
Before HUTCHESON and GEWIN, Circuit Judges, and CONNALLY, District Judge.
After a lengthy hearing in this cause, a Miller Act suit, in which the Use-plaintiff, Industrial Instrument Corp. (IIC), a supplier of equipment under Atlas Missile contracts, brought suit against the general contractor, Paul Hardeman, Inc., its surety on the Miller Act payment bond, and the sub-contractor with whom IIC had a direct contractual relationship, this cause came on to be heard on the motions for summary judgment of the Use-plaintiff and of the defendants.
After weeks of deposition taking and extended efforts to simplify the myriad complex controverted issues in the case, the parties recognized: that the question, whether IIC, the appellant, was legally justified in insisting on the payment of sight drafts as a condition of delivery under its contract with CompuDyne Corporation, the sub-contractor, cut through all other issues; that the facts bearing on the question were without dispute; and that the question was ripe for decision. Accordingly, all parties moved for summary judgment on this question.
The district judge, of the opinion (1) that the Use-plaintiff's motion for summary judgment should be denied; and (2) that summary judgment should be rendered for defendants, entered judgment accordingly1 and filed a memorandum opinion2 in support of his conclusions, thereby bringing the controlling issues in the case into clear focus; and, since appellant and appellees agree that the statement of the case, as outlined in the court's opinion, is substantially correct in all material respects and the appeal should be decided on the statement set forth in that opinion, the difficulties of correctly presenting and disposing of the issues presented here for review have been greatly lessened and this opinion has been greatly shortened.
In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williamson v. Tucker
...Cir. 1973); Steed v. Central Georgia Railway Co., 477 F.2d 1303, 1305 (5th Cir. 1973); United States ex rel. Industrial Investment Corp. v. Paul Hardeman, Inc., 320 F.2d 115, 116 (5th Cir. 1963). In this case it is not clear what action the district court took or whether it based its decisi......
-
Williamson v. Tucker
...Cir. 1973); Steed v. Central Georgia Railway Co., 477 F.2d 1303, 1305 (5th Cir. 1973); United States ex rel. Industrial Investment Corp. v. Paul Hardeman, Inc., 320 F.2d 115, 116 (5th Cir. 1963). In this case it is not clear what action the district court took or whether it based its decisi......
-
Huckeby v. Frozen Food Exp.
...1059 n.4 (5th Cir. 1973); Steed v. Central Ga. Ry. Co., 477 F.2d 1303, 1305 (5th Cir. 1973); United States ex rel. Industrial Inv. Corp. v. Paul Hardeman, Inc., 320 F.2d 115, 116 (5th Cir. 1963).5 Rule 54(b) declares:When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as ......
-
Landau v. J. D. Barter Const. Co., Inc.
...Cir. 1980). See also Solely v. Star & Herald Co., 390 F.2d 364, 369-370 (5th Cir. 1968); U. S. for Use and Benefit of Industrial Instrument Corp. v. Paul Hardeman, Inc., 320 F.2d 115 (5th Cir. 1963); 6 Moore's Federal Practice P 56.02(11) (2d ed. 1979).13 In the event some, but not all issu......