G. E. SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC., A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CENTENNIAL ASSOCIATES, LTD., ETC., PLAINTIFF,
v.
OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Centennial's appeal is dismissed due to failure to comply with appellate rules, and the judgment in favor of Otis on Smith Associates' claim is affirmed.
Smith Associates contracted with Otis Elevator for an elevator installation on a building owned by Centennial Associates. Disputes arose from this ins…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Notice Of Appeal Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Gary Smith is a general partner in Centennial Associates and president and principal stockholder of Smith Associates. Centennial entered into a contract to have work done by Smith Associates on an apartment building owned by Centennial. Smith Associates entered into a contract with Otis Elevator for installation of an elevator. This case arose from differences over the elevator job. Otis was successful below.
The jury on adequate evidence and proper instructions found against Smith Associates on its breach of contract claim.
Centennial asserted claims based upon breach of contract and trespass. Otis’s motion to dismiss the appeal of Centennial must be granted. Centennial did not substantially comply with the rule requiring filing notice of appeal, Parrish v. Board of Commissioners, 505 F. 2d 12, 16 (CA5, 1974), opinion withdrawn on other grounds, 509 F. 2d 540 (1975), en banc opinion substituted, 524 F. 2d 98 (1975); see also, Cobb v. Lewis, 488 F. 2d 41 (CA5, 1974), nor is this a case of a mere minor irregularity. Only Smith Associates appealed; Centennial’s name did not appear on the notice of appeal at all, and no other notice of any kind was ever given that it intended to appeal. Centennial and Smith Associates are not one and the same but are different entities in contract with one another, one as owner and the other as party to do construction work. The notice of appeal should have contained the names of both parties in order to perfect both parties’ appeals. Life Time Doors, Inc. v. Walled Lake Door Co., 505 F. 2d 1165, 1166 (CA6, 1974). Also, Centennial did not file a cost bond, which itself may justify dismissal. MacNeil Bros. v. State Realty Co. of Boston, 262 F. 2d 364, 366 (CAl, 1959).1
The motion to dismiss Centennial’s appeal is GRANTED. Judgment in favor of Otis on the claim of Smith Associates is AFFIRMED.
. Centennial would fare no better if its appeal were not dismissed. Assuming that Centennial had standing to complain of an alleged breach of contract by Otis, the jury verdict settled this claim. On Centennial’s trespass claim the jury found for Otis, and the court’s jury instruction on Centennial’s consent to a nonforceable entry by Otis was correct.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hays v. Sony Corp. OF Am., 847 F.2d 412 (7th Cir. 1988)
-
Allen Archery, Inc. v. Precision Shooting Equip., Inc., 857 F.2d 1176 (7th Cir. 1988)
-
Ayres, 789 F.2d 1173 (5th Cir. 1986)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cobb v. Lewis, 488 F.2d 41 (5th Cir. 1974)
- Parrish v. Bd. OF Comm'rs OF the Ala. State BAR, 524 F.2d 98 (5th Cir. 1975)
- Life Time Doors v. Walled Lake Door Co., 505 F.2d 1165 (6th Cir. 1974)
- McCURDY v. The Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Palm Beach Cnty., 509 F.2d 540 (5th Cir. 1975)
- Parrish v. Bd. OF Comm'rs OF the Ala. State BAR, 505 F.2d 12 (5th Cir. 1974)
- MacNEIL Bros. Co. v. State Realty Co. OF Boston, Inc., 262 F.2d 364 (1st Cir. 1959)