Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

The Cold Metal Process Company and the Union National Bank of Youngstown, Ohio, Trustee v. United Engineering & Foundry Company

221 F.2d 115

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1955-04-21
Topic
bankruptcy

PER CURIAM. The appellee in this case has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal of United Engineering & Foundry Company on the ground that the judgment appealed from is not final. A similar motion was made on March 21, 1955, which was granted. The order granting the motion was made “without prejudice to the right of the District Court * * * to enter a final judgment therein in accordance with the provisions of Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [28 U.S. C.].” Following this order United presented to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania a motion to vacate its judgment of January 19, 1955, and to enter judgment in accordance with Rule 54(b).

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed The Cold Metal Process Company and the Union National Bank of Youngstown, Ohio, Trustee v. United Engineering & Foundry Company. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
3 opinions
COLD METAL PROCESS v. UNITED ENG'G FOUNDRY,221 F.2d 115(3rd Cir. 1955)
The COLD METAL PROCESS COMPANY and the Union National Bank of Youngstown,
Ohio, Trustee, v. UNITED ENGINEERING FOUNDRY COMPANY, Appellant.
No. 11582.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued April 18, 1955.
Decided April 21, 1955.
Jo. Baily Brown, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant, in opposition to motion to dismiss.

William H. Webb, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellees, on motion by appellees to dismiss appeal.
Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and STALEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The appellee in this case has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal of United Engineering Foundry Company on the ground that the judgment appealed from is not final. A similar motion was made on March 21, 1955, which was granted. The order granting the motion was made "without prejudice to the right of the District Court * * * to enter a final judgment therein in accordance with the provisions of Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [28 U.S.C.]."

Following this order United presented to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania a motion to vacate its judgment of January 19, 1955, and to enter judgment in accordance with Rule 54(b). This was done by the district court on March 30, 1955, after argument in open court. We think the determination made under the circumstances of this case is the very kind of thing Rule 54(b) was written to provide for. We see no violation of discretion on the part of the district judge in entering it.

The motion of the appellee to dismiss will, therefore, be denied.