Christopher v. American News Co., 9918.

Decision Date22 July 1949
Docket NumberNo. 9918.,9918.
Citation176 F.2d 11
PartiesCHRISTOPHER v. AMERICAN NEWS CO.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Irving Breakstone, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.

Arthur J. Goldberg, Carl Devoe, Abraham W. Brussell, Milton I. Shadur, Chicago, Ill., for appellee.

Before KERNER and MINTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In another aspect of this case this court decided that the complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. Christopher v. American News Co., 7 Cir., 171 F. 2d 275. The defendant, The American News Company, answered over and plaintiff moved to strike certain portions of the answer. Before plaintiff's motion was disposed of, defendant filed a motion and supporting affidavit to transfer the cause to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under New Federal Judicial Code Sec. 1404(a), 28 U.S. C.A. § 1404(a). The affidavit alleged among other things that plaintiff has pending an action entitled Louis C. Christopher v. The Nation Associates, Inc., and Paul L. Klein, No. 45-464, at issue and awaiting trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; that the two defendants in that cause, as publisher and author, respectively, of the article complained of, are in fact the principal defendants in any cause of action the plaintiff may have; and that a transfer of the trial of this action to New York would save duplication in the production of witnesses and documents and time and expense to the parties.

After brief oral proceedings wherein plaintiff apparently moved the court to pass on his motion to strike, the court entered an order of two parts: One, granting defendant's motion to transfer the cause to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; and, two, denying plaintiff's oral motion for a ruling on plaintiff's motion to strike the answer, after finding that for the better administration of justice the judge of the court who will try the case is the proper judge to rule thereon. The plaintiff filed notice of appeal from both parts of this order. The defendant thereupon filed a motion in this court to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the court's order was not final and, therefore, not appealable, New Federal Judicial Code, Sec. 1291, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291.

Without deciding whether the order appealed from is appealable or not, we think this appeal should be dismissed. The order discloses on its face that it was based on the power given to the District Court by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1404(a): "For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought."

This section by its terms makes the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • E.E.O.C. v. Rath Packing Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • October 9, 1984
    ... ... 989, 95th Cong., 2nd Sess. 52, reprinted in 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 5787, 5838; H.Rep. No. 595, 95th Cong., 2nd Sess. 343, reprinted in 1978 ... Pettway v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 494 F.2d 211, 260 (5th Cir.1974) (banc) ... ...
  • Institutionalized Juveniles v. Secretary of Public Welfare
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • March 26, 1985
    ... ... v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 540 F.2d 102, 117 (3d ... National Tea Co., 585 F.2d 47 (3d Cir.1978), which established that, in a ... ...
  • Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • July 14, 1986
    ...transfer, the district judge must consider the statutory factors in light of all the circumstances of the case. 3 Christopher v. American News Co., 176 F.2d 11 (7th Cir.1949); see also Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622, 84 S.Ct. 805, 812, 11 L.Ed.2d 945 (1964) (Sec. 1404(a) requires "......
  • In re Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litigation
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • April 24, 2000
    ... ... COHEN; K. LOUISE JONES; JAMES LAMENT; CHRISTOPHER S. BROWN; CATHLENE BROWN; CRAIG BROWN; MARGHERITA BARBETTA; ... The named Defendants in this appeal (Monsanto Co., Westinghouse Electric Corp., and General Electric Co.), ...         This admixture of American practices was for the most part codified in the Federal ... ...
  • 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