Opinion
Nos. 9904-9907, 9909.
Argued June 14, 1949.
Decided July 29, 1949.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; Guy L. Fake, Judge.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari or for Writ of Mandamus or Writ of Prohibition.
Actions by Hartford Accident Indemnity Company, to the Use of Esther P. Silva and Earl C. Silva, a minor, to the Use of George W. Johnson, to the Use of Henry K. Plemer, and to the Use of Hiram John, respectively, against Interstate Equipment Corporation to recover as subrogee of employer under Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq., for compensation paid to the respective use plaintiffs by reason of a compensable accident allegedly caused by defendant's negligence. From an order, 74 F. Supp. 791, granting plaintiff's motion to amend complaint in each case to describe defendant as a New York corporation, and from an order, 81 F. Supp. 357, denying defendant's motion to strike earlier opinion, defendant appeals in each case. The appeals were heard with original proceeding by Interstate Equipment Corporation against United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and Honorable Guy L. Fake, the Chief Judge thereof, for a writ of certiorari, or mandamus, or prohibition to restrain court from proceeding with trials of cases in which appeals were filed and on motion for rule to show cause why such restraint should not be issued.
Appeals dismissed and petitions for writs denied.
Charles Danzig, Newark, N.J. (Riker, Emery Danzig, Newark, N.J., on the brief), for appellant Interstate Equipment Corporation.
Joseph Coult, Newark, N.J. (Coult Satz, Newark, N.J., on the brief), for plaintiffs.
Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and McLAUGHLIN and O'CONNELL, Circuit Judges.
The appeals at bar are from two orders of the court below. The appellants have also petitioned this court for writs to restrain the court below from proceeding with the trials of the cases and have filed a motion for a rule to show cause why such restraint should not be issued. All the cases may appropriately be treated in one opinion.
The appeals must be dismissed for the orders of the court below determined no more than that the New York corporation possessing substantially the same name as the corporation of New Jersey originally sued by the plaintiff shall be held to answer the plaintiff. We are a court of limited jurisdiction as has been pointed out repeatedly. See the decision of the Supreme Court in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corporation, 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, and our opinion affirmed by the decision last cited in the identical case, 3 Cir., 170 F.2d 44, 49-50. The orders appealed from are no more than orders made in the course of the litigations. There has been no final disposition on the merits insofar as the New York corporation is concerned. We therefore are without the power to determine the validity of the orders complained of. If the New York corporation is wrongly held in the suits that legal fact can be determined by appeals after trials on the merits in the court below.
What we have said disposes also of the motion for a rule to show cause on the petition of the New York corporation for writ of certiorari, mandamus or prohibition. These extraordinary writs may not be invoked in lieu of appeals. This is so well settled as to require no further discussion.
Accordingly the appeals will be dismissed and the motion for leave to file petitions for a writ of certiorari, mandamus or prohibition will be denied.