Toomey v. Toomey
Decision Date | 16 April 1945 |
Docket Number | No. 8915.,8915. |
Citation | 149 F.2d 19,80 US App. DC 77 |
Parties | TOOMEY et al. v. TOOMEY et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Joseph C. Suraci, of Washington, D. C., for appellants.
Messrs. Leo P. Harlow and Marshall H. Lynn, both of Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before GRONER, C. J., and EDGERTON and ARNOLD, JJ.
This case began as a suit for a declaratory judgment. The defendants filed three compulsory counterclaims,1 which arose out of the same transaction as the plaintiffs' claims, and also several permissive counterclaims.2 Defendants moved to dismiss the original complaint; plaintiffs moved to dismiss the compulsory counterclaims; and there were several motions to strike various parts of other pleadings. The trial court acted upon ten of these motions in a single order the pertinent parts of which are as follows: "Upon consideration of the divers motions filed herein by the respective parties hereto and upon oral argument thereof duly had, it is * * * Ordered, that: * * * Plaintiffs' separate motions to dismiss the separate cross-complaints i.e., the compulsory counterclaims3 * * *, sustained; * * * Motion to dismiss original complaint filed by the plaintiffs, * * * overruled * * *."
Defendants noted an appeal from the quoted parts of the order and filed the record in this court. Plaintiffs now move to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order is not final.4 Plainly the overruling of the motion to dismiss the original complaint was not a final order.
In support of their contention that the sustaining of the motion to dismiss the counterclaims was likewise not a final order, plaintiffs rely upon our statement in Southland Industries v. Federal Communications Commission5 that "an appeal cannot be taken * * * from a judgment or decree not final as to all the parties, the whole subject-matter and all the causes of action involved." But that case was decided before the Federal Rules took effect, and what we said there must be modified so far as it is inconsistent with those Rules.6 Before the Rules were adopted the dismissal of any counterclaim, leaving the plaintiff's claim pending, did not have the effect of a final judgment.7 But the Rules 8 The same may be said of claims and counterclaims which are entirely distinct.
But the Rules intend that a claim and counterclaims which are not entirely distinct, but arise out of the same transaction, shall be treated as a unit; that the court shall pass no final judgment upon any of them until the issues involved in all of them have been decided; and that only one final judgment shall be entered upon them all.9 Rule 54(b) provides: 10 Consequently, 11 The court doubtless intended its order to have only the interlocutory effect which the Rules permit.12 But even if the order had expressly purported to be a final judgment dismissing these compulsory counterclaims, we think the Rules would prevent it from having final effect.13 Since the order appealed from is interlocutory the appeal must be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
1 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co. v. Sylvania Indust. Corp.
...Cir., 136 F.2d 621, 147 A.L.R. 574 (decided by the court now sitting); Oppenheimer v. F. J. Young Co., 2 Cir., 144 F.2d 387; Toomey v. Toomey, App. D.C., 149 F.2d 19; and Markham v. Kasper, 7 Cir., 152 F.2d 270. This carries out a federal policy going back to the early days of the Republic,......
-
Bendix Aviation Corp. v. Glass
...v. Crucible Steel Co., 3 Cir., 1948, 165 F.2d 997; Eastern Transport Co. v. U. S., 2 Cir., 1947, 159 F.2d 349; Toomey v. Toomey, 1945, 80 U.S. App.D.C. 77, 149 F.2d 19. Accord: Coffman v. Federal Laboratories Inc., 3 Cir., 1948, 171 F.2d 94. Cf. Cohen v. Globe Indemnity Co., 3 Cir., 1941, 1......
-
Lopinsky v. Hertz Drive-Ur-Self Systems
...with such earlier cases. See also Audi Vision Inc. v. RCA Mfg. Co., 2 Cir., 136 F.2d 621, 623, 624, 147 A.L.R. 574, and Toomey v. Toomey, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 77, 149 F.2d 19. Mr. Dodge's reference to "piecemeal judgments" at the Washington Institute, Proceedings of Washington Institute on Feder......
-
Clinton Foods v. United States
...v. Mut. Benefit Life Ins. Co., 4 Cir., 93 F.2d 559, 561; Lockhart v. New York Life Ins. Co., 4 Cir., 71 F.2d 684; Toomey v. Toomey, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 77, 149 F.2d 19. "The general rule is well settled that an order granting or refusing change of venue is not appealable unless expressly made s......