Wright v. Taft-Peirce Mfg. Co., 1584.

• Decision Date: 13 February 1923
• Docket Number: 1584.
• Parties: WRIGHT v. TAFT-PEIRCE MFG. CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

287 F. 131

WRIGHT v. TAFT-PEIRCE MFG. CO.

No. 1584.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

February 13, 1923

Chauncey E. Wheeler, of Providence, R.I. (Arthur M. Allen, Clifford A Kingsley, and Hinckley, Allen, Tillinghast & Phillips, all of Providence, R.I., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

Frederick W. O'Connell, of Providence, R.I. (Harold W. Thatcher and Swan, Keeney & Smith, all of Providence, R.I., and John Wallace Young and Gordon, Weed & Young, all of New York City on the brief), for defendant in error.

Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

BINGHAM Circuit Judge.

This is an action at law for breach of a contract to manufacture certain machines and tools with which to make the machines. There was a trial by jury in the District Court for the District of Rhode Island and a verdict found for the plaintiff in the sum of $23,901.31. The defendant filed a motion for a new trial, and, after hearing the parties, the District Court ruled, as a matter of law, that the defendant was entitled to suspend work on the machines as the plaintiff had failed to pay certain invoices for tools when due (the contract giving the defendant the right to stop work at any time if any payment stipulated for was not made promptly as agreed), and granted the motion. Thereupon the plaintiff brought his writ of error to this court.

The case is now before us on the defendant's motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

In the Judicial Code, Sec. 128, as amended January 28, 1915, 38 Stat.at Large, c. 22, Sec. 2, p. 803 (Comp. St. Sec. 1120) the jurisdiction of Circuit Courts of Appeals to review decisions of District Courts is stated as follows 'The Circuit Courts of Appeals shall exercise appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal or writ of error final decisions in the District Courts, * * * in all cases other than those in which appeals and writs of error may be taken direct to the Supreme Court,' etc.

The words 'final decision' as used in this statute and statutes of similar import have from an early day been held to mean a final judgment, one disposing of the entire controversy between the parties. Harrington v Holler, 111 U.S. 796, 4 Sup.Ct. 697, 28 L.Ed. 602; Brush Electric Co. v. Electric Improvement Co., 51 F. 557, 560, 2 C.C.A. 373; Cassatt v. Mitchell Coal & Coke Co., 150 F. 32, 34, 81 C.C.A. 80, 10 L.R.A. (N.S.) 99; McCargo v. Chapman, 20 How. 555, 15 L.Ed. 1021; Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., 147 U.S. 337, 13 Sup.Ct. 356, 37 L.Ed. 194; McLish v. Roff, 141 U.S. 661, 12 Sup.Ct. 118, 35 L.Ed. 893; National Life Ins. Co. v. Scheffer, 131 U.S. Appendix, cciii, 26 L.Ed. 1110; Green v....