EI DU PONT DE NEMOURS COMPANY v. Hall, 6941.
Decision Date | 11 March 1955 |
Docket Number | No. 6941.,6941. |
Citation | 220 F.2d 514 |
Parties | E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS COMPANY, Inc., Appellant, v. Leo HALL, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss the action on the ground that plaintiff's sole remedy is under the South Carolina Workmen's Compensation Act, Code 1952, § 72-1 et seq. It was admitted that a reversal of the holding of the trial judge on this question would result in the termination of the litigation between the parties; and the case is one which illustrates the wisdom of the recent proposal approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States that the statute relating to interlocutory appeals be amended.1 The amendment of the statute, however, is a matter for Congress, not for the courts; and under the law as it now stands we have no option but to dismiss the appeal, since we are given jurisdiction of appeals from final judgments only, except in the special cases enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1292. Baltimore Contractors v. Bodinger, 348 U.S. 176, 75 S.Ct. 249; City of Morgantown, W. Va., v. Royal Insurance Co. Ltd., 337 U.S. 254, 69 S.Ct. 1067, 93 L.Ed. 1347; International Nickel Co. v. Martin J. Barry, 4 Cir., 204 F.2d 583; International Refugee Organization v. Republic S. S. Corporation, 4 Cir., 189 F.2d 858; County Bank, Greenwood, S. C. v. First National Bank of Atlanta, 4 Cir., 184 F.2d 152; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. United Fuel Gas Co., 4 Cir., 154 F.2d 545.
Appeal dismissed.
1 The Judicial Conference of the United States at the September 1953 meeting approved a recommendation of one of its committees that section 1292 of Title 28 of the United States Code be amended by adding thereto the following:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rieser v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
...(2d ed.) 290-292, and in the concurring opinion in Pabellon v. Grace Line, 2 Cir., 191 F.2d 169, at page 179 ff.6 E. I. Dupont de Nemours Co. v. Hall, 4 Cir., 220 F.2d 514, illuminates the inefficacy of Rule 54(b) or any other conceivable Rule, absent such a statute. There defendant appeale......
-
Clayton v. Warlick
...is not a final order and that petitioner cannot appeal from it. See Beury v. Beury, 4 Cir., 222 F.2d 464; E. I. Du Pont De Nemours Co., Inc., v. Hall, 4 Cir., 220 F.2d 514. We think it equally clear that writ of prohibition cannot be used as substitute for an appeal in such a case. Until Co......
-
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY v. Jernigan
...of W. B. Guimarin & Co., 263 U.S. 427, 44 S.Ct. 144, 68 L.Ed. 371; Beury v. Beury, 4 Cir., 222 F.2d 464; E. I. du Pont de Nemours Company, Inc., v. Hall, 4 Cir., 220 F.2d 514; National Bondholders Corp. v. McClintic, 4 Cir., 99 F.2d Appeal dismissed. ...
-
Columbia Boiler Co. of Pottstown v. Hutcheson
...is not a final order and that petitioner cannot appeal from it. See Beury v. Beury, 4 Cir., 222 F.2d 464; E. I. Du Pont De Nemours Co., Inc., v. Hall, 4 Cir., 220 F.2d 514. We think it equally clear that writ of prohibition cannot be used as substitute for an appeal in such a case. Until Co......