From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martin v. Staples

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Nov 10, 1947
164 F.2d 106 (D.C. Cir. 1947)

Opinion

No. 9476.

Argued October 14, 1947.

Decided November 10, 1947.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

Will contest between Cecelia Mitchell Martin and John L. Staples, Jr. From jury's verdict, Cecelia Mitchell Martin appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

Mr. Louis E. Spiegler, of Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Sol M. Alpher, of Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. John P. Labofish, of Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Joseph George Dondero, of Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellee.

Before EDGERTON, Associate Justice, MARIS, Circuit Judge, and PRETTYMAN, Associate Justice.


This appeal was taken from a jury's verdict before judgment had been entered. It is therefore premature and must be dismissed. St. Louis Amusement Co. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 8 Cir., 156 F.2d 400; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 58, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. However, we have examined the record and find that the judgment would be affirmed if it were before us. Appellant is the beneficiary of a will which has been denied probate because the jury found that the will had been procured by undue influence, duress, or coercion. Appellant, conceding that the definitions of undue influence, duress and coercion in the instructions of the trial judge to the jury were correct, urges that there was no evidence to support the jury's verdict. We find that the evidence was ample.

Appeal dismissed.


Summaries of

Martin v. Staples

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Nov 10, 1947
164 F.2d 106 (D.C. Cir. 1947)
Case details for

Martin v. Staples

Case Details

Full title:MARTIN v. STAPLES

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: Nov 10, 1947

Citations

164 F.2d 106 (D.C. Cir. 1947)
82 U.S. App. D.C. 370

Citing Cases

State v. Mason

The quoted language, therefore, is just as applicable to the docket entry provision of Rule 58. This is also…

Roe Village, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners

Consequently, since the appeal was filed prior to the entry of final judgment (K.S.A. 60-258 [ b]), there was…