
    Jose delBusto, Appellant, v. E. I. DuPont deNemours & Company, Inc., Respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: While it is true that the complaint makes mention of “ gases, fumes, vapors, fibers and other impurities ” generally, the case was argued and briefed on the assumption that this case involved a silicosis or dtist disease. Furthermore, the last paragraph of the complaint, before the demand for judgment, sums up plaintiff’s alleged cause of action by alleging the unconstitutionality of the statute which deprives him of his common-law remedy for partial injury caused by “ hazardous dust,” without giving him compensation therefor. We hold that the statute is constitutional. All concur. (The judgment grants judgment on the pleadings on motion of defendant in a silicosis action.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and McCurn, JJ. 
      
       See Workmen’s Comp. Law, § 3, subd. 2, as amd. by Laws of 1935, chap. 254; Id. art. 4-A, added by Laws of 1936, chap, 887,— [Rep.
     