Andris v. Du Pont Cellophane Co.
| Decision Date | 30 November 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 6196.,6196. |
| Citation | 93 F.2d 421 |
| Parties | ANDRIS et al. v. DU PONT CELLOPHANE CO., Inc. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Francis Heisler, of Chicago, Ill., for appellants.
Thomas C. Angerstein, George W. Angerstein, Russell F. Locke, Mitchell D. Follansbee, Clyde E. Shorey, and Louis W. Becker, Jr., all of Chicago, Ill., and Abel Klaw, of Wilmington, Del., for appellee.
Before EVANS and SPARKS, Circuit Judges, and LINDLEY, District Judge.
This appeal is from a decree dismissing plaintiffs' complaint predicated upon a common law action for injury through contraction of an occupational disease.
The plaintiff, Beulah Andris, worked in defendant's manufactory wherein cellophane was handled, and it is alleged that the inhalation of cellophane dust caused serious lung disorders culminating in tuberculosis. Suit was originally begun in the Illinois state court and was removed to the Federal court where a motion to dismiss was granted. Thereafter, plaintiffs were given leave to file an amended complaint, which carried two counts, one alleging the father's cause of action, and the other, the daughter's — the employee's. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that there was no cause of action in Illinois for occupational diseases. The court overruled the motion to dismiss, and defendant moved to vacate the order and renewed its motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that in Illinois no common law right of action existed against an employer in whose service an occupational disease is contracted. It cited and relied on Illinois Supreme Court decisions. The court, on September 23, 1936, in a short memorandum, concluded that it was bound to follow the Illinois decisions and granted the motion to dismiss. This appeal resulted.
On October 22, plaintiffs moved the District Court to vacate the order of September 23 which dismissed their action. On November 10, the District Court denied this motion to vacate the order of dismissal, and the appeal is from this order.
Defendant has moved this court to dismiss the appeal because the order appealed from is not appealable. This motion was denied without prejudice to its renewal at the time of the hearing on the merits.
The notice of appeal mentions only the order of November 10, which simply denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate the order of September 23. The assignments of error, however, allege as error the entry of the order of September 23 dismissing the bill...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mohonk Realty Corporation v. Wise Shoe Stores
...F.2d 964; Smith v. United States ex rel. Gorlo, 7 Cir., 52 F.2d 848; Glinski v. United States, 7 Cir., 93 F.2d 418; Andris v. DuPont Cellophane Co., 7 Cir., 93 F.2d 421; Bensen v. United States, 9 Cir., 93 F.2d 749; Republic Supply Co. v. Richfield Oil Co., 9 Cir., 74 F.2d Appellant also ma......
-
Hack v. American Surety Co. of New York
...by the Indiana Supreme Court is of controlling weight with us. McGuire v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 7 Cir., 87 F.2d 112; Andris v. Du Pont Cellophane Co., 7 Cir., 93 F.2d 421. See, also, Boseman v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 301 U.S. 196, 57 S.Ct. 686, 81 L.Ed. 1036, 110 A.L.R. (b) The statute r......
-
Allen v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.
...McGuire v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 7 Cir., 87 F.2d 112; Gestauts v. American Manganese Steel Co., 7 Cir., 87 F.2d 1005; Andris v. Du Pont Cellophane Co., 7 Cir., 93 F.2d 421. In view of these unequivocal rulings further discussion of the applicable law seems Nor can we accept plaintiff's urge......
-
Donovan v. Jeffcott
...72, 32 F.2d 968; Smith v. United States, 7 Cir., 52 F.2d 848; Glinski v. United States, 7 Cir., 93 F.2d 418, 419; Andris v. DuPont Cellophane Co., 7 Cir., 93 F.2d 421; In re Colwell, 7 Cir., 93 F.2d 946, Appeal dismissed. ...