U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 1931

Hunt v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Decided November 2, 1931 · Phillips, McDermott, Pollock

53 F.2d 333; 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 2663 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

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. Tooiney, 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. G., on the brief), for the United States.

Cases that cite this one

18 later published cases cite this decision.

Scott v. JC Penney Company (N.M. 1960)
Helen Tsoleas v. Claudia F. Hege (4th Cir. 1957)
Gonzales v. Trujillo (Colo. 1956)
Kanatser v. Chrysler Corp. (10th Cir. 1952)
Pasquel v. Owen (District Court, W.D. Missouri 1951)
De Grazia v. Anderson (D.C. 1948)
Long v. Davis (9th Cir. 1948)
Crutcher v. Joyce (10th Cir. 1943)
Traders & General Insurance v. Yellow Cab Operating Co. (10th Cir. 1941)
Marshall's U. S. Auto Supply, Inc. v. Cashman (10th Cir. 1940)
Barnsdall Refining Corporation v. Birnamwood Oil Co. (District Court, E.D. Wisconsin 1940)
Libby, McNeill & Libby v. Malmskold (9th Cir. 1940)
Nelson v. Breitenbucher (10th Cir. 1938)
Public Service Commission v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co. (3d Cir. 1935)
Demulso Corporation v. Tretolite Co. (10th Cir. 1934)
Southern Pac. Co. v. Klinge (10th Cir. 1933)
Satterlee v. Harris (10th Cir. 1932)
Bronx Fire Ins. v. Wasson (10th Cir. 1932)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

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. 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 sotting 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. TaftPeirce 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) 41 F. *334 (2d) 57; Hume v. Bowie, 148 U. S. 245, 13 S. Ct. 582, 37 L. Ed. 438. .

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.