BETTIE MURPHY AND LLOYD MURPHY, HER HUSBAND, AND LLOYD MURPHY, IN HIS OWN RIGHT, APPELLANTS IN NO. 15184,
v.
HELENA RUBENSTEIN COMPANY, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND H. J. TITUS, INC., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, JOINTLY, SEVERALLY AND/OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, APPELLANTS IN NO. 15185
BETTIE MURPHY AND LLOYD MURPHY, HER HUSBAND, AND LLOYD MURPHY, IN HIS OWN RIGHT, APPELLANTS IN NO. 15184,
HELENA RUBENSTEIN COMPANY, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND H. J. TITUS, INC., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, JOINTLY, SEVERALLY AND/OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, APPELLANTS IN NO. 15185
355 F.2d 553
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (1965)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:
On motion, the district court entered an order vacating a default judgment and at the same time refusing to quash, service. At this intermediate stage of the litigation the plaintiffs have appealed from the vacating of the default judgment and the defendants have taken a cross-appeal from the refusal to quash service.
We have recently held that an order vacating a default judgment is not final within the meaning of section 1291 of Title 28, United States Code, and, therefore, cannot support an immediate appeal. Crowe v. Ragnar Benson, Inc., 1962, 307 F. 2d 73. Similarly, a refusal to quash service is not an appealable final order. The appeal and the cross-appeal will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Joseph v. Off. OF the Consulate Gen. OF Nigeria, 830 F.2d 1018 (9th Cir. 1987)
Authorities Cited
- Crowe v. Ragnar Benson, Inc., 307 F.2d 73 (3d Cir. 1962)