Pioneer Grain Corporation v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.

Decision Date19 July 1930
Docket NumberNo. 8702.,8702.
Citation42 F.2d 1009
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Harold G. Simpson, of Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant.

A. C. Erdall, of Minneapolis, Minn. (F. W. Root and C. O. Newcomb, both of Minneapolis, Minn., on the brief), for appellee.

Before KENYON, BOOTH and GARDNER, Circuit Judges.

BOOTH, Circuit Judge.

An action was brought by the appellee railway company against the appellant, as defendant, to recover demurrage charges. The defendant answered, denying its liability. It also set up a counterclaim, alleging that plaintiff was liable in damages to it for a negligent breach of duty as a common carrier to furnish cars to defendant during the times referred to in the complaint. In its reply the plaintiff denied the counterclaim; later it moved to dismiss the same. This motion was denied (D. C.) 26 F.(2d) 90. Thereafter plaintiff moved to amend its reply, by inserting allegations that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the counterclaim; and it also renewed its motion to dismiss the same. From an order allowing plaintiff's amendment to its reply and dismissing defendant's counterclaim, the present appeal was taken.

In so far as the order allowed the amendment of the reply, it was discretionary, not a final order, and therefore not appealable. Economy, etc., Co. v. Killark, etc., Co., 235 F. 120 (C. C. A. 8); Stillwagon v. B. & O. R. Co. (C. C. A.) 159 F. 97; J. W. Darling Co. v. Porter (C. C. A.) 256 F. 455; Pierce v. National Bank of Commerce, 282 F. 100 (C. C. A. 8).

In so far as the order dismissed the counterclaim, it was not a final order, and therefore not appealable. Winters v. Ethell, 132 U. S. 207, 10 S. Ct. 56, 33 L. Ed. 339; Emery v. Central Tr. Co. (C. C. A.) 204 F. 965, 968; Radio Corp. v. J. H. Bunnell & Co. (C. C. A.) 298 F. 62; Dyar v. McCandless, 33 F.(2d) 578 (C. C. A. 8).

With certain exceptions, not here material, we have no jurisdiction to entertain appeals from interlocutory orders. 28 USCA § 225; Foster Fed. Prac. (6th Ed.) § 695; Rexford v. Brunswick-Balke Co., 228 U. S. 339, 33 S. Ct. 515, 57 L. Ed. 864; Morgan v. Thompson, 124 F. 203 (C. C. A. 8); Economy, etc., Co. v. Killark, etc., Co., supra; J. W. Darling Co. v. Porter, supra; Herrup v. Stoneham (C. C. A.) 15 F.(2d) 49; Dyar v. McCandless, supra; Guaranty Tr. Co. v. Albia Coal Co., 36 F.(2d) 34 (C. C. A. 8).

The appeal is accordingly dismissed; but as the appellee has argued...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Hancock Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • October 28, 1940
    ...F. 97; J. W. Darling Lumber Co. v. Porter, 5 Cir., 256 F. 455; Kulesza v. Blair, 7 Cir., 41 F.2d 439; Pioneer Grain Corp. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 8 Cir., 42 F.2d 1009; Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Overman Cushion Tire Co., 6 Cir., 66 F.2d 81; Werner v. Zintmaster, 3 Cir.,......

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