Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Hunt v. United States

Hunt v. United States, 53 F.2d 333 (10th Cir. 1931)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1931-11-02
Topic
general

PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge. This is an action to recover on a policy of war risk insurance. Upon the trial there was a verdict for plaintiff. Whereupon defendant filed a motion for a new trial. The eourt sustained such motion, and entered an order setting aside the verdict and granting defendant a new trial.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Hunt v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
18 opinions
HUNT v. UNITED STATES,53 F.2d 333(10th Cir. 1931)
HUNT v. UNITED STATES.
No. 475.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
November 2, 1931.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Colorado; John Foster Symes, Judge.

Action by Wayne G. Hunt on war risk insurance policy against the United States. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order granting defendant a new trial, plaintiff appeals.

Appeal dismissed.
Sherman A. Sutliff and Kenaz Huffman, both of Denver, Colo. (Frank E. Gove and Luke J. Kavanaugh, both of Denver, Colo., on the brief), for appellant.

Richard A. Toomey, Atty., Veterans' Administration, of Denver, Colo. (Ralph L. Carr, U.S. Atty., and John G. Reid, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of Denver, Colo., and Wm. W. Smith, Sp. Counsel, Veterans' Administration, and Bayless L. Guffy, Atty., Veterans' Administration, both of Washington, D.C., on the brief), for the United States.
Before PHILLIPS and McDERMOTT, Circuit Judges, and POLLOCK, District Judge.
PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.
This is an action to recover on a policy of war risk insurance. Upon the trial there was a verdict for plaintiff. Whereupon defendant filed a motion for a new trial. The court sustained such motion, and entered an order setting aside the verdict and granting defendant a new trial. Plaintiff has undertaken to appeal from such order. The cause now stands in the District Court with the issues undisposed of, as if it had never been tried.

Except in patent suits and proceedings for injunctions and the appointment of receivers, where it has jurisdiction to review certain interlocutory orders or decrees, the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Appeals upon appeal is limited to the review of final decisions of District Courts. Sections 225, 227 and 227a, Title 28 USCA.

A final decision is one that disposes of the entire controversy between the parties. Wright v. Taft-Peirce Mfg. Co. (C.C.A. 1)287 F. 131; Todd Engineering, D.D. R. Co. v. United States (C.C.A. 5)32 F.2d 734,735; La Bourgogne,210 U.S. 95,112,28 S. Ct. 664,52 L. Ed. 973.

An order setting aside a verdict and granting a motion for a new trial is not a final decision, and an appeal does not lie therefrom. Ft. Dodge Portland Cement Corp. v. Monk (C.C.A. 8)276 F. 113; Clement v. Wilson (C.C.A. 2)135 F. 749; Wright v. Taft-Peirce Mfg. Co., supra; Dry Dock, E.B. B.R. Co. v. Petkunas (C.C.A. 2)261 F. 988; Sentinel Co. v. Dinwiddie (C.C.A. 7)Page 33441 F.2d 57; Hume v. Bowie,148 U.S. 245,13 S. Ct. 582,37 L. Ed. 438.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.Page 453