Julian A. Aubertin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
Julian A. AUBERTIN, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., Appellee
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order of the Trial Court entered June 29, 1957, vacating and setting aside the verdict and judgment for Aubertin and granting a new trial. The reason for this action by the Court below as stated in that order was that the verdict as rendered for $8,166.67 was manifestly a quotient verdict there being no items of special damage which could in any way support such a figure.
Appeal from such an order is premature and cannot be maintained. The appeal must be based on a final judgment below. 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1291 , 1292; Milprint, Inc., v. Donaldson Chocolate Co., 8 Cir., 222 F.2d 898, 902 ; Bass v. Baltimore & O. Terminal R. Co., 7 Cir., 142 F.2d 779 ; 6 Moore, Federal Practice #59.09 [4], 59.15 [1] ; 7 Id. #73.09 [4]. There is no such judgment here. This is not a case in which a motion for new trial has been denied thus leaving intact the final judgment entered. See e.g., Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Underhill, 5 Cir., 234 F.2d 620 ; Ft. Worth & Denver Ry. Co. v. Roach, 5 Cir., 219 F.2d 351 . Instead, the judgment below has been vacated leaving no basis for our review.
The review of the asserted error must await the second trial and appeal from that judgment. Finn v. American Fire & Casualty Co., 5 Cir., 207 F.2d 113 ; Marshall’s U. S. Auto Supply, Inc., v. Cashman, 10 Cir., 111 F.2d 141 .
Appeal dismissed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.