Adams v. New York, C. & St. LR Co.

Citation121 F.2d 808
Decision Date24 June 1941
Docket NumberNo. 7414.,7414.
PartiesADAMS et al. v. NEW YORK, C. & ST. L. R. CO.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Glenn Griswold and Russell J. Wildman, both of Peru, Ind., for appellants.

Russell P. Harker, of Frankfort, Ind., for appellee.

Before EVANS and TREANOR, Circuit Judges, and LINDLEY, District Judge.

EVANS, Circuit Judge.

The District Court sustained a motion to dismiss appellants' complaint seeking a declaratory judgment defining their seniority rights as railroad employees, on the ground that exclusive jurisdiction to hear said complaint resided either in the National Railroad Adjustment Board or the National Mediation Board, under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq. From the order of dismissal, plaintiffs appeal.

The complaint alleged: The seven plaintiffs are employees of the Lake Erie & W. Railroad with seniority rights on its Sandusky Division, under a contract between the Order of Trainmen and the Road, bearing date, April 1, 1924. This road was merged first in the "Nickle Plate" and later with the "Cloverleaf Road," these mergers occurring about April 5, 1923. The employees of "Cloverleaf" were thereupon used on Lake Erie Road in disregard of, and to the prejudice of, plaintiffs' seniority rights, whereby they were deprived of steady employment and given seniority rights of inferior value. They alleged that the now-preferred Cloverleaf employees have not served on the Cloverleaf Road as long as plaintiffs had served on the Lake Erie Road. Diversity of citizenship and a sufficient jurisdictional amount were also alleged.

There were two issues: one technical, the other, substantive. The former relates to a lack of a "statement of points" (Rule 75(d), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c) and is urged as a ground of dismissal of this appeal. The latter raises the serious legal problem of whether the Railway Labor Act, in providing specifically for an administrative forum to determine controversies like the one here presented, impliedly deprived the Federal District Court of jurisdiction, which it otherwise would have had under the diversity of citizenship statute.

I. Dismissal of Appeal. The appellants furnished no statement of points. Rule 75(d) provides:

"If the appellant does not designate for inclusion the complete record and all the proceedings and evidence in the action, he shall serve with his designation a concise statement of the points on which he intends to rely on the appeal."

While the dictum in the case of Keeley v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 7 Cir., 113 F.2d 633, 636, states that:

"It follows from what we have said that if our present rule 9 relative to statement of points had been in force at the time that the instant appeal was taken it would be necessary to dismiss the appeal. * * * we go on to say — and as already stated the purpose of the particular provisions which have been violated by appellant is to protect the appellee against an inadequate record on appeal. Appellee, however has not suggested that her cause on appeal was in any way prejudiced by the failure of appellant to either serve, or file with the clerk, a concise statement of the points to be relied upon on appeal. In the absence of any claim of injury, we do not feel justified in dismissing the appeal."

In the instant case there was no basis for claim of injury or prejudice or surprise on the part of appellee due to lack of knowledge as to the points which would be pressed on appeal. The only pleadings filed were the complaint (to which were attached two exhibits which have not been included in the record on this appeal) and the motion to dismiss, which was granted.

The motion to dismiss was grounded on four precise specifications, and the District Court's judgment was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Washington Terminal Co. v. Boswell
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • November 18, 1941
    ...Yardmasters of North America v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. Co., D.C.N.D.Ohio 1940, 39 F.Supp. 876. See also Adams v. New York, Chicago & St. L. R. Co., 7 Cir., 1941, 121 F.2d 808, decided after the decision in the Moore case was rendered, and distinguishing Nord v. Griffin, 7 Cir., 1936, 86 ......
  • Shipley v. Pittsburgh & LER Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • March 8, 1949
    ...the Board a prerequisite to filing a suit in court. Kelly v. Nashville C. & St. L. R., D. C., 75 F.Supp. 737; Adams et al. v. New York C. & St. L. R. Co., 7 Cir., 121 F.2d 808, 810; Moore v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 312 U.S. 630, 61 S.Ct. 754, 85 L.Ed. 1089; Beeler v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. ......
  • Slocum v. Delaware Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 10, 1950
    ...496, 87 N.E.2d 532; Southern R. Co. v. Order of Ry. Conductors of America, 210 S.C. 121, 41 S.E.2d 774. See also Adams v. New York, C. & St. L.R. Co., 7 Cir., 121 F.2d 808. 3. Cf. United States v. Bank of New York & Trust Co., 296 U.S. 463, 479, 56 S.Ct. 343, 348, 80 L.Ed. 331; see Claflin ......
  • OIL WORKERS INTER. UNION, ETC. v. Texoma Nat. Gas Co., 10971.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • January 3, 1945
    ...Board, App.D.C., 143 F.2d 145. 4 Lehigh Coal & Nav. Co. v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey, D.C., 33 F.Supp. 362; Adams v. New York, C. & St. L. R. Co., 7 Cir., 121 F.2d 808. The record reveals, however, that no proceedings were pending before the Board when this suit was filed. 5 Cf. Mississi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT