Thornell v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company
Citation | 166 F. Supp. 61 |
Decision Date | 05 September 1958 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 3310. |
Parties | Carl A. THORNELL, Plaintiff, v. The CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Arthur H. Schwab, Chicago, Ill., S. Eldridge Sampliner, Cleveland, Ohio, Victor G. Hanson, Detroit, Mich., of counsel, for plaintiff.
Erwin W. Roemer, Chicago, Ill., Robert A. Straub, Detroit, Mich., and Paul O. Strawhecker, Grand Rapids, Mich., of counsel, for defendant.
This is an action upon two counts, the first being an action for personal injuries under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688, and the second, for maintenance and cure under the General Maritime Law.
It appears that the plaintiff, Carl A. Thornell, while under the age of twentyone (21) years, was employed as a coal passer aboard the defendant's car ferry Spartan, a vessel duly enrolled and licensed for the coasting trade, and engaged in commerce and navigation upon the Great Lakes. On July 4, 1954, the plaintiff was injured. He claims that the injuries resulted from negligence on the part of the defendant.
This action was originally instituted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, but was by that court transferred to this court, "in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties and witnesses." The matter is before the court on the defendant's motion to dismiss the action or in the alternative for a summary judgment. The motion sets up an alleged release pursuant to the authority and order of the Probate Court for the County of Mason, State of Michigan. A hearing was had at which time defendant produced the Registrar of Probate of Mason County, and introduced in evidence the originals of the settlement papers from the files of that Probate Court, certified copies of such instruments were attached to the defendant's motion.
The court is satisfied that under the provisions of Rule 12(b) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., a motion to dismiss is not appropriate since the complaint to which the motion is directed does state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The motion will, therefore, be treated as a motion for summary judgment under the provisions of Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That Rule provides in part:
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in reviewing the considerations which should be before the court in determining motions for a summary judgment has said in Aetna Insurance Co. v. Cooper Wells & Co., 6 Cir., 1955, 234 F.2d 342, 344:
And in the more recent case, Knapp v. Kinsey, 6 Cir., 249 F.2d 797, at page 801, the court said:
At the time of the hearing on the motion, the plaintiff asserted, through his counsel, that he had a right to go to the jury on the issue of the propriety of the release. It is the theory of the plaintiff that because he was a seaman the order of the Probate Court of Mason County approving the settlement is subject to review by a jury in this court.
It is the theory of the plaintiff that all of the circumstances surrounding the entry of the Probate Court order should be reviewed by a jury in this court and that such a jury should be permitted to pass upon the propriety of the entry of the order of the Probate Court. While this may seem to be an unusual theory a transcript of the arguments of counsel in this case on June 12, 1957, will effectively demonstrate that plaintiff's counsel had no other theory. Plaintiff relies entirely upon Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., Inc., 317 U.S. 239, 246, 63 S.Ct. 246, 251, 87 L.Ed. 239, and quotes as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Anzaldua v. Band
...County, where the Court of Claims sits. Analogous federal decisions confirm this interpretation. See, e.g., Thornell v. Chesapeake & O.R. Co., 166 F.Supp. 61 (W.D.Mich.1958). The majority discounts this interpretation by stating that "such convenience concerns always exist when a party sues......
-
De Luxe Game Corp. v. Wonder Products Co.
... ... WONDER PRODUCTS COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant ... REMPEL MANUFACTURING, INC., ... , District of Massachusetts, Northern District of Ohio and Western District of Oklahoma. No intimations have been ... ...
-
National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Miller
...judgment, determinations made by the state court are with some exception entitled to full faith and credit. Thornell v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 166 F.Supp. 61, 66 (W.D.Mich.1958). Consequently, we choose to use National Equipment to resolve the facts of this action. We disagree with the con......
-
Perdikouris v. THE S/S OLYMPOS
...of any showing of fraud perpetrated upon the court in securing the order approving the settlement. Thornell v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, D. C.W.D.Mich., 166 F.Supp. 61; Cooper v. Newell, 173 U.S. 555, 567, 19 S.Ct. 506, 43 L.Ed. 808. However, full faith and credit does not require ......