Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Contracts · MBE-tested
SPURWAY v. WALKER-SKAGSETH FOOD STORES, Inc.
68 F.2d 735·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1934
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
SPURWAY v. WALKER-SKAGSETH FOOD STORES, Inc.
No. 7115.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 8, 1934.
Rehearing Denied March 2, 1934.
Charles R. Pierce, of Miami, Fla., for appellant.
Douglas D. Felix and Fred H. Kirtley, both of Miami, Fla., for appellee.
Before BRYAN, SIBLEY, and HUTCH-ESON, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
A final decree was entered in the District Court in favor of appellee upon its bill to enforce specific performance of a contract and for an accounting. Spurway, as receiver of the City National Bank, two other individuals, and two corporations were made parties defendant; and they were all substantially interested in and affected by the decree. The receiver alone has appealed, without joining in the appeal his codefendants, and without taking an order of summons and severance; and the time for doing either has long since expired.
On these grounds appellee moves to dismiss the appeal. Upon the authority of Hardee v. Wilson, 146 U. S. 179, 13 S. Ct. 39, 36 L. Ed. 933 ; Wilson v. Kiesel, 164 U. S. 248, 17 S. Ct. 124, 41 L. Ed. 422; Garcia v. Vela, 216 U. S. 598, 30 S. Ct. 439, 54 L. Ed. 632, and Hartford Accident & Ind. Co. v. Bunn, 285 U. S. 169, 52 S. Ct. 354, 76 L. Ed. 685, the motion to dismiss must bo and is granted.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.