Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Donovan v. Jeffcott

Donovan v. Jeffcott, 147 F.2d 198 (9th Cir. 1945)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1945-01-08
Topic: general

How later courts describe this case

motion to vacate the judgment

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Donovan v. Jeffcott. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 7 opinions

DONOVAN v. JEFFCOTT,147 F.2d 198(9th Cir. 1945)

DONOVAN v. JEFFCOTT et al.

No. 10741.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

January 8, 1945.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Arizona; Albert M. Sames, Judge.

Action by Edward J. Donovan against David C. Jeffcott and another for services performed. From an order denying plaintiff's motion to vacate a judgment for defendants and to rehear his motion for leave to amend his amended complaint, plaintiff appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

Lesley B. Allen, of Tucson, Ariz., for appellant.

Darnell Robertson, of Tucson, Ariz., for appellees.

Before WILBUR, DENMAN, and MATHEWS, Circuit Judges.

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.

In Jeffcott v. Donovan, 9 Cir.,135 F.2d 213, we reversed a judgment of the District Court of the United States for the District of Arizona and remanded this case to that court for further proceedings.

Our mandate was issued on August 3, 1943. On August 27, 1943, plaintiff, Edward J. Donovan, moved the District Court for leave to amend his amended complaint. An order denying the motion was entered on September 23, 1943. On September 27, 1943, judgment was entered as follows:

"It is Hereby Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that plaintiff herein recover nothing against the said defendants [David C. Jeffcott and Elsie Jeffcott], or either of them, and that the said defendants recover of plaintiff the sum of Eight Hundred Sixty-four and 72/100 Dollars ($864.72) costs taxed and allowed by said Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and that said defendants have execution therefor."

That judgment was a final decision, within the meaning of § 128(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 225(a), and hence was appealable, but no appeal was taken therefrom.

On October 1, 1943, plaintiff moved the District Court to vacate the judgment of September 27, 1943, and to rehear thePage 199motion of August 27, 1943. An order denying the motion of October 1, 1943, was entered on December 13, 1943. From that order plaintiff has appealed.

That order was not a final decision, within the meaning of § 128(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 225(a), and was not appealable. Republic Supply Co. v. Richfield Oil Co., 9 Cir.,74 F.2d 909, 910; Lack v. Western Loan Building Co., 9 Cir.,146 F.2d 852. See, also, International Bank v. Securities Corporation, 59 App.D.C. 72,32 F.2d 968; Smith v. United States, 7 Cir.,52 F.2d 848; Glinski v. United States, 7 Cir.,93 F.2d 418, 419; Andris v. DuPont Cellophane Co., 7 Cir.,93 F.2d 421; In re Colwell, 7 Cir.,93 F.2d 946, 948.

Appeal dismissed.