TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

County Bank, Greenwood, S.C. v. First National Bank of Atlanta

County Bank, Greenwood, S. C., v. First National Bank of Atlanta

Cnty. Bank, Greenwood, S.C. v. First Nat'l Bank of Atlanta, 184 F.2d 152 (1st Cir. 1950)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
August 3, 1950
Docket
No. 6099_1
Judges
Soper, Dobie, Moore
Citations
184 F.2d 1521950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3053

Opinion — Dobie

DOBIE, Circuit Judge.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond instituted, in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Soutlr Carolina, a civil action against The County-Bank, Greenwood, South Carolina. By-court order, The County Bank was permitted to file a third-party complaint against The First National Bank of Atlanta, with a provision in the order that service of process might be made on The First National Bank at any place within the territorial limits of the State of South Carolina. A copy of the summons, third-party complaint and order was served on Frank Davis, a vice-president of The First National Bank, while he was attending a convention of the South Carolina Bankers Association at Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

Later, The First National Bank filed a motion, based on various grounds, to dismiss the third-party complaint against it. This motion was granted by the District Judge, who assigned no reasons for his action. Thé County Bánk'has appealed to us from this order dismissing the third-party complaint.

We find it unnecessary to discuss-the questions raised by the instant appeal,for we think the appeal is premature and must be dismissed. The decision of the District Court is in'no proper sense'a final judgment, since it does not settle the issues-involved in this case. Further, the decision imposes no liability upon anyone. County Bank is not hurt,- as it- may win ins the District Court, while, if it loses there,, all proper questions can then be brought-before us. Piece-meal appeals should not be encouraged.

In Carolina Power and Light Co., v. J. A. Jones Construction Co., 1

we dismissed the appeal as premature. That case is *153 precisely like the instant case. There John Burns, as plaintiff, instituted a civil action against the Carolina Power and Light Company, as defendant. The defendant was permitted to file- a third-party complaint against the J. A. Jones Construction Company. Later, the District Court granted the motion of J. A. Jones Construction Company to dismiss the third-party complaint. We dismissed the appeal of Carolina Power and Light Company on the ground that the appeal was premature, since the decision of the District Court dismissing the third-party complaint was not a final judgment ■and was, therefore, not appealable.

The appeal in the instant case is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

1

. No opinion for publication.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1951: 21953: 11954: 11955: 11956: 11958: 11961: 11969: 119512026peak 1951 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Pabellon v. Grace Line, Inc. (Coston Supply Co., Third-And-Fourth-Party )191 F.2d 169 (2d Cir. 1951)
  2. Ford Motor Co. v. Milby Ford Motor Co. v. Mahone210 F.2d 137 (4th Cir. 1954)
  3. C B S Steel & Forge Co. v. Shultz191 F.2d 683 (9th Cir. 1951)
  4. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours Company, Inc. v. Leo Hall220 F.2d 514 (4th Cir. 1955)
  5. Moynahan v. Fritz367 P.2d 199 (Ariz. 1961)
  6. Jenrette v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad308 F. Supp. 642 (D.S.C. 1969)

Most recent

  1. Jenrette v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad308 F. Supp. 642 (D.S.C. 1969)
  2. Moynahan v. Fritz367 P.2d 199 (Ariz. 1961)
  3. Sechrist v. Dyke256 F.2d 881 (4th Cir. 1958)
  4. Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated v. The Collins' Estate, Inc.237 F.2d 253 (4th Cir. 1956)
  5. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours Company, Inc. v. Leo Hall220 F.2d 514 (4th Cir. 1955)
  6. Ford Motor Co. v. Milby Ford Motor Co. v. Mahone210 F.2d 137 (4th Cir. 1954)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list