Court Opinion

ID: 9650359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:32:56.329318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:20.655394
License: Public Domain

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
Obviously, the order appealed from was not a final decision and hence was not‘appealable under § 128(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 225(a). Stillwagon v. Baltimore & Ohio Ry. Co., 3 Cir., 159 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., 77 F.2d 74.
Appellant concedes that the order was not appealable under § 128(a), but contends that it was appealable under §§ 128(b) and 129 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 225(b), 227. Section 128(b) provides that the circuit courts of appeals shall have appellate jurisdiction to review the interlocutory orders or- decrees of the district courts which are specified in § 129. Section 129 provides: “Where, upon a hearing in a district court * * * an injunction is * * * refused * * * by an interlocutory order or decree * * * an appeal may be taken from such interlocutory order or decree to the circuit court of appeals * * *
The order here appealed from did not refuse an injunction. It merely refused leave to file a proposed amended and supplemental answer and a proposed amendment to a counterclaim. The proposed amended and supplemental answer did not pray for an injunction. The proposed amendment to the counterclaim, if it had been allowed, would have incorporated in the counterclaim a prayer for an injunction ; but 'the proposed amendment was not allowed. Hence, no application for an injunction was ever made or presented. Much less was there a hearing upon such an. application.
Appellant cites In-A-Floor Safe Co. v. Diebold Safe & Lock Co., 9 Cir., 91 F.2d 341, 342, wherein this court held that “An order denying leave to file a counterclaim praying an injunction is an interlocutory order tantamount to one refusing an injunction, so is appealable under section 129 of the Judicial Code,” citing General Electric Co. v. Marvel Rare Metals Co., 287 U.S. 430, 433, 53 S.Ct. 202, 77 L.Ed. 408. Actually, the General Electric case lends no support to this court’s holding in the In-A-Floor case. For the order which the Supreme Court held appealable in the General Electric case was an order dismissing a previously filed counterclaim comprising, inter alia, an application, for an injunction — an application which had been made, heard, considered and denied. The order which this court held appealable in the In-A-Floor case was an order refusing leave to file a proposed counterclaim comprising, inter alia, a proposed application for an injunction — an application which was never made, heard, considered or acted upon.
The In-A-Floor decision is erroneous and should be overruled. Even if correct, *49it is not controlling here. For the In-A-Floor case and this case are distinguishable in that, in the In-A-Floor case, the order appealed from was an order refusing leave to file a counterclaim, whereas the order here appealed from was an order refusing leave to amend a counterclaim already filed.
The appeal should be dismissed.