Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

218 F. 636

Docket No. 147.

The Transfer No. 21

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided November 13, 1914.)

Second Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1914-11-13

<p>Admitíai.ty (§ 103*) — Appeal—Appealable Obders — ‘‘Final Decision.”</p> <p>An order entered in a proceeding for limitation of liability, denying a> motion to dismiss tbe petition and vacate an order restraining tbe prosecution of actions in a state court, is not a “final decision,” and is not ap-pealable.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Admiralty, Cent. Dig. §§ 712-719; Dec. Dig. § 103.*</p> <p>For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series,. Final Decision.</p> <p>Appealable orders and decrees in admiralty, see note to In re Oceanic Steam Navigation Co., 124 C. C. A. 348.]</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1935

1 counsel of record

Relies on State of Virginia v. State of Tennessee · Bender v. Pennsylvania Co. · Manhattan Co. v. Blake

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

On motion to dismiss appeal · Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1914-11-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Admitíai.ty (§ 103*) — Appeal—Appealable Obders — ‘‘Final Decision.”

¶2An order entered in a proceeding for limitation of liability, denying a> motion to dismiss tbe petition and vacate an order restraining tbe prosecution of actions in a state court, is not a “final decision,” and is not ap-pealable.

¶3[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Admiralty, Cent. Dig. §§ 712-719; Dec. Dig. § 103.*

¶4For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series,. Final Decision.

¶5Appealable orders and decrees in admiralty, see note to In re Oceanic Steam Navigation Co., 124 C. C. A. 348.]

¶6Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

¶7In the matter of the petition of the New York, New Haven. & Hartford Railroad Company, as owner of the steam tug Transfer No. 21,. for limitation of liability. Otto Schmuck and others, damage claimants, appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss the proceedings.

¶8On motion to dismiss appeal. Motion granted.

¶9Charles M. Sheafe, Jr., of New York City (James T. Kilbreth, of New York City, of counsel), for petitioner.

¶10Before COXE, WARD, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

¶12PER CURIAM.

¶13The order of the District Court does not finally dispose of the 'claimant’s rights, as its contentions can be asserted on appeal from the final decree, and therefore is not such a final decision as to be appealable. Section 129 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1134 [Comp. St. 1913, § 1121]) applies only to equity proceedings and .shows that the granting or refusing of an *637interlocutory injunction is not a final decision, because it required the statute to make such orders appealable. Most of the claimant’s reasoning would apply to an order remanding or refusing to remand a cause to the state court because of the citizenship of the parties, but a writ of error cannot be, taken to either order. Chicago & St. Paul R. R. Co. v. Roberts, 141 U. S. 693, 12 Sup. Ct. 123, 35 L. Ed. 905; Bender v. Penna. Co., 148 U. S. 502, 13 Sup. Ct. 640, 37 L. Ed. 537.

¶14Motion granted.

/218/f1d/636 · .json · Public domain