Watkins v. Watkins
| Citation | 260 F.2d 548 |
| Decision Date | 26 September 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 17391.,17391. |
| Parties | Ex Parte Tom R. WATKINS, Petitioner. (Wesson Oil and Snowdrift Company, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Tom R. WATKINS, Defendant, Civil Action No. 842, United States District Court For the Southern District of Mississippi, Eastern Division, Meridian, Mississippi.) |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Thomas D. Bourdeaux, Meridian, Miss., for petitioner.
John H. Holloman, Columbus, Miss., J. C. Wilbourn, Meridian, Miss., for respondent.
Before RIVES, BROWN and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.
This motion was filed in the office of the Clerk of this Court on August 25, 1958. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi still has jurisdiction of the above styled Civil Action No. 842 pending in said Court, and the Judge of said Court has authority to decide whether to amend his order appointing a master so as to state his opinion on the matters referred to in the recent Interlocutory Appeals Act, 72 Stat. 1770, approved September 2, 1958,1 whereupon it might be that this Court could permit an appeal to be taken from such order.
In our opinion, this Court should not pass upon the said motion for leave so long as it is not clear and undisputable that there is no adequate remedy by appeal.2
Further consideration of the said motion for leave is therefore postponed to give time for the said District Court to consider said Interlocutory Appeals Act. To that end the movant is directed to call this order to attention of the District Judge. Nothing herein stated should be construed as the expression of any opinion by this Court as to the proper course of action of the District Judge. That is a matter at this time to be decided by him uninfluenced by anything herein stated. This Court expects to give further consideration to said motion for leave on or before Thursday, October 9, 1958.
1 Said Act added to Section 1292 of Title 28, United States Code, an additional subparagraph lettered (b) to read as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hadjipateras v. PACIFICA, SA
...§ 1292(a) (3), Pannizzo v. Lauro, 2 Cir., 1955, 228 F.2d 222, the District Court retained sufficient control of the case. Ex parte Watkins, 5 Cir., 1958, 260 F. 2d 548. Consequently, the amended order of April 26 can stand alone. It contains an adequate certificate, and presented to us as i......
-
Rapp v. Van Dusen, 14927
...Superior Court, 44 Cal.App.2d 664, 112 P.2d 965, 967 (1941); 6 Moore, Federal Practice (1953), ¶ 54.10 2, pp. 72-3. 27 See Ex parte Watkins, 260 F.2d 548 (5 Cir. 1958); Note, Appealability in the Federal Courts, 75 Harv.L.Rev. 351, 382 1 Certainly, it would require a dubious and far fetched......
-
Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 26168.
...5 Cir., 1958, 260 F.2d 546, on remand, Deepwater Exploration Co. v. Andrew Weir Ins. Co., E.D.La., 1958, 167 F.Supp. 185; Ex parte Watkins, 5 Cir., 1958, 260 F.2d 548, certification held inadequate, 5 Cir., 271 F.2d 771, 76 A.L.R.2d 1113; Jewell v. Grain Dealers Mutual Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 195......
-
Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co.
...5 Cir., 1958, 260 F.2d 546, on remand, Deepwater Exploration Co. v. Andrew Weir Ins. Co., E.D.La., 1958, 167 F.Supp. 185; Ex parte Watkins, 5 Cir., 1958, 260 F.2d 548, certification held inadequate, 5 Cir., 271 F.2d 771, 76 A.L.R. 2d 1113; Jewell v. Grain Dealers Mutual Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 19......