Kamienski v. Bluebird Air Serv., Inc., No. 27987.

CourtSupreme Court of Illinois
Writing for the CourtSTONE
Citation59 N.E.2d 853,389 Ill. 462
PartiesKAMIENSKI v. BLUEBIRD AIR SERVICE, Inc.
Decision Date19 March 1945
Docket NumberNo. 27987.

389 Ill. 462
59 N.E.2d 853

KAMIENSKI
v.
BLUEBIRD AIR SERVICE, Inc.

No. 27987.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Jan. 17, 1945.
As Modified on Denial of Rehearing March 19, 1945.


[59 N.E.2d 853]

Error to Third Division Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Joseph E. Daily, Judge.

Action by Henry C. Kamienski against Bluebird Air Service, Incorporated, for injuries suffered in airplane accident. To review a judgment of the Appellate Court, 321 Ill.App. 340, 53 N.E.2d 131, affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.

Writ of error dismissed.

Ekern, Meyers & Matthias and Sears, O'Brien & Streit, all of Chicago (Barnabas F. Sears, Donald L. Thompson, and William G. Chorn, all of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

Adams, Moses & Culver, of Chicago, for defendant in error.

[59 N.E.2d 854]


STONE, Justice.

Defendant, Bluebird Air Service, Inc., has sued out of this court a writ of error to review the judgment of the Appellate Court, First District, which affirmed a judgment rendered against it in an airplane accident. A motion has been filed by the plaintiff, Kamienski, to dismiss the writ of error for want of a right in defendant to have a review of the case by that means. Defendant contends that the action of the Appellate Court in affirming the judgment of the trial court deprived defendant of due process of law and violated the constitutional provision which vests only appellate jurisdiction in the Appellate Court.

The complaint in the trial court consisted of two counts, the first of which charged negligent operation of the plane by the pilot, and the second alleged violation of certain rules and regulations of the Civil Aeronautics Authority of the Department of Commerce of the United States relative to testing the engine prior to the takeoff, and also alleged the failure to observe certain local field traffic rules.

At the close of plaintiff's evidence, the trial court overruled defendant's motion for a directed verdict on count one and sustained that motion as to count two and dismissed that count. A trial was had and a verdict rendered, and as a result of the proceedings, judgment in the sum of $3300 was entered.

On the trial of the cause, though the plaintiff introduced no evidence tending to support the second count, and although that count was dismissed at the close of plaintiff's case, defendant, nevertheless, introduced substantial evidence tending to establish that it had complied with the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Corp., No. 37795
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 18 Marzo 1964
    ...analysis of those phases of the litigation. Gould v. Gould, 408 Ill. 526, 97 N.E.2d 826; Kamienski Page 773 v. Bluebird Air Service, Inc., 389 Ill. 462, 59 N.E.2d The substance of plaintiffs' complaint against American Mutual, (hereafter referred to as defendant) and the theory they have co......
  • People ex rel. Schlaeger v. Reilly Tar & Chem. Corp., Nos. 28288
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 19 Marzo 1945
    ...effect that appropriations to offset the deductions necessarily appear in other portions of the budget is not supported by any reference [59 N.E.2d 853]to either the record or the abstract. Indeed, its own explanation that the deductions are merely a method of allocating the total amount of......
  • Ness v. West Coast Airlines, Inc., No. 9394
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 14 Diciembre 1965
    ...(Mo.) 300 S.W.2d 412, 73 A.L.R.2d 371, Anno. 379 (1957); Kamienski v. Bluebird Air Service, 321 Ill.App. 340, 53 N.E.2d 131 (1944), 389 Ill. 462, 59 N.E.2d 853 (1945); Kasanof v. Embry-Riddle Co., 157 Fla. 677, 26 So.2d 889 (1946); Allison v. Standard Air Lines (F DC Cal.1930) U.S. Av.R. 29......
  • Bradford Supply Co. v. Waite, No. 29162.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 17 Enero 1946
    ...is not designed to circumvent the statute requiring the filing of a petition for leave to appeal. Kamienski v. Bluebird Air Service, Inc., 389 Ill. 462, 59 N.E.2d 853. The observations made in the Kamienski case apply with like force to plaintiff's contention that it should have been permit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Corp., No. 37795
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 18 Marzo 1964
    ...analysis of those phases of the litigation. Gould v. Gould, 408 Ill. 526, 97 N.E.2d 826; Kamienski Page 773 v. Bluebird Air Service, Inc., 389 Ill. 462, 59 N.E.2d The substance of plaintiffs' complaint against American Mutual, (hereafter referred to as defendant) and the theory they have co......
  • People ex rel. Schlaeger v. Reilly Tar & Chem. Corp., Nos. 28288
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 19 Marzo 1945
    ...effect that appropriations to offset the deductions necessarily appear in other portions of the budget is not supported by any reference [59 N.E.2d 853]to either the record or the abstract. Indeed, its own explanation that the deductions are merely a method of allocating the total amount of......
  • Ness v. West Coast Airlines, Inc., No. 9394
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 14 Diciembre 1965
    ...(Mo.) 300 S.W.2d 412, 73 A.L.R.2d 371, Anno. 379 (1957); Kamienski v. Bluebird Air Service, 321 Ill.App. 340, 53 N.E.2d 131 (1944), 389 Ill. 462, 59 N.E.2d 853 (1945); Kasanof v. Embry-Riddle Co., 157 Fla. 677, 26 So.2d 889 (1946); Allison v. Standard Air Lines (F DC Cal.1930) U.S. Av.R. 29......
  • Bradford Supply Co. v. Waite, No. 29162.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 17 Enero 1946
    ...is not designed to circumvent the statute requiring the filing of a petition for leave to appeal. Kamienski v. Bluebird Air Service, Inc., 389 Ill. 462, 59 N.E.2d 853. The observations made in the Kamienski case apply with like force to plaintiff's contention that it should have been permit......
  • 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