Robert N. Williams and Patricia M. Williams v. A.L. Bishop
Robert N. WILLIAMS and Patricia M. Williams, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. A.L. BISHOP, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from a summary judgment entered by the district court for two of three defendants named in the appellants’ suit. The action was brought to set aside a conveyance that resulted from a foreclosure by Bishop of property owned by the Williamses. The Williamses claimed that they had been defrauded by having been lulled into a belief by Bishop, who held a mortgage on their property, that he would not immediately foreclose, that he would buy the property in a foreclosure sale, if one was had, and that he would divide any profit made by reason of a subsequent sale with them. The property was later bid in by Bishop and then sold by him to the Roysters for a sum in excess of $50,000 above the cost to him.
The trial court found in favor of the Roysters, the ultimate purchasers, on their motion for summary judgment because it found that they had no knowledge or participation in any of the acts charged against Bishop. The court ordered a judgment to be entered in their favor. However, he did not enter the finding required under Rule 54(b) F.R.C.P. to the effect that there was no cause for delay.
1
Upon entry of the judgment in favor of the Roysters, there still remained pending in the district court the Williams claim against Bishop and the Roysters counterclaim against the *886 Williamses. It is clear, therefore, that the summary judgment favoring the Roysters was a judgment for “fewer than all the claims or parties.” Since our jurisdiction lies from a “final judgment” we are without jurisdiction over this appeal.
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Ericksons, Inc., 396 F.2d 134 (5th Cir.1968).
The appeal is DISMISSED.
1
. Rule 54(b) provides:
Judgment Upon Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or a third party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of a judgment.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(concluding that grant of summary judgment for “fewer than all the claims or parties” is not 6 appealable)
-
(concluding that the grant of summary judgment in favor of two of the three named defendants was not an immediately appealable final judgment because it disposed of “fewer than all claims or parties.”’)
Cited by 237 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- R.S.B. Ventures, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Company
- Hudson v. Hall
- CSX Transportation, Inc. v. City of Garden City
- Luisa M. Fernandez v. Bankers National Life Insurance Company
- William Castleberry v. Goldome Credit Corp.
- John Insinga, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Mildred Insinga, Deceased v. Michelle Labella, Humana, Inc., D/B/A Biscayne Medical Center
Most recent
- BMO BANK, N.A. v. SCOTT DONALDSON
- Tricia A. Spivey, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Randall L. Spivey, Jr. v. Unknown
- BlackTower Group, Inc. v. B. Baker Consulting, LLC, doing business as Briker Communications
- United States of America v. Cuevas EM Construction Corp.
- Sunstream Corporation, Inc. v. Petrov
- Sunstream Corporation, Inc. v. Petrov
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.