Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Skelly Oil Company, a Corporation v. Albert Zimmerman and Alberta Zimmerman, Partners, D/B/A Sinclair Rexall Drugs, a Partnership, and Milton Brown, 7549_1 (1964)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Number: 7549_1 Visitors: 36
Filed: Jun. 04, 1964
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 332 F.2d 618 SKELLY OIL COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. Albert ZIMMERMAN and Alberta Zimmerman, partners, d/b/a Sinclair Rexall Drugs, a partnership, and Milton Brown, Appellees. No. 7549. United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit. June 4, 1964. Herbert A. Marshall, Topeka, Kan. (Allen Meyers and Doral H. Hawks, Topeka, Kan., on the brief) for appellant. C. K. Sayler, Topeka, Kan. (David H. Fisher, Donald Patterson, Jack L. Summers, Charles S. Fisher, Jr., Topeka, Kan., and Robert Reede
More

332 F.2d 618

SKELLY OIL COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant,
v.
Albert ZIMMERMAN and Alberta Zimmerman, partners, d/b/a
Sinclair Rexall Drugs, a partnership, and Milton
Brown, Appellees.

No. 7549.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

June 4, 1964.

Herbert A. Marshall, Topeka, Kan. (Allen Meyers and Doral H. Hawks, Topeka, Kan., on the brief) for appellant.

C. K. Sayler, Topeka, Kan. (David H. Fisher, Donald Patterson, Jack L. Summers, Charles S. Fisher, Jr., Topeka, Kan., and Robert Reeder, Troy, Kan., on the brief) for appellees.

Before PHILLIPS, LEWIS and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

The Insurance Company brought this action against the Zimmermans to recover, as subrogee, the amount it had paid under a fire insurance policy issued by it to Myrtle W. and Forrest H. Hagenbuck, on account of a fire loss suffered by them, alleging the fire was caused solely by the negligent acts of the Zimmermans. The Zimmermans filed a third party complaint against Skelly Oil Company.

2

From an order denying Skelly's motion to dismiss the third party complaint, Skelly has sought to appeal.

3

Such order was clearly interlocutory and not a final order. It does not fall within any of the categories of interlocutory orders made appealable by 28 U.S.C.A. 1292(a) and no effort was made to comply with 28 U.S.C.A. 1292(b), nor did the court direct the entry of a final judgment, under Rule 54(b), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.

4

The appeal is dismissed without prejudice.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer