United States v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation, 3315.

• Decision Date: 23 December 1938
• Docket Number: No. 3315.,3315.
• Citation: 26 F. Supp. 259
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

26 F. Supp. 259

UNITED STATES v. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION et al.

No. 3315.

District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

December 23, 1938.

J. Cullen Ganey, U. S. Atty., of Bethlehem, Pa., Bon Geaslin, Gen. Counsel U. S. Maritime Com., Hardin B. Price, Paul D. Page, Jr., Ralph H. Hallett, and Francis S. Walker, all of Washington, D. C., for the United States and the U. S. Shipping Board Merchant Fleet Corporation.

Richardson Dilworth, of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants.

DICKINSON, District Judge.

The years which have elapsed since this proceeding was instituted and the greater number of years since its subject matter has been in controversy loudly proclaim it is high time the litigation should be brought to an end.

There are two cases growing out of the same transaction, which were tried together. One is the above entitled case in Equity; the other an action at Law. For the convenience of the parties the Equity proceeding was referred to a Special Master and the action at law tried by a Referee under the Pennsylvania Statute of 1874 and its amendment of 1889, 5 P.S. Pa. § 201 et seq. Wm. Clarke Mason, Esq. acted as Special Master and also as Referee.

We will discuss the questions raised as if there were but one case and this opinion may be marked as filed in each. The Master and Referee made the required Findings of Fact and formulated his Conclusions of Law thereon. Exceptions were filed to the Report of the Master and of the Referee. These exceptions were all dismissed except one, 23 F.Supp. 676. The learned Referee gave judgment against the defendant in the action at law for the sum he found to be due, with interest at two per cent. The Court sustained the exception to the allowance of interest.

The conclusions reached by the Court were that the Bill in Equity should be dismissed and judgment should be entered against the defendant in the action at law for the sum found by the Master without the inclusion of any interest but with costs. Nothing remained to be done but to enter a formal decree in the Equity proceeding and a formal judgment in the action at law. Moving for these was not the allowance of a re-argument. Counsel for the United States has, however, submitted a full and considered Brief on the question of what the decree and judgment should be. This we have been earnestly urged to consider and out of deference to this request have done so. The form in the decree in the Equity suit follows of course the established practice in Equity but as modified, we suppose, by the New Procedure Rules. The action at law having been submitted to a Referee under the State Act the procedure there should be in accord with the State practice, as also so modified.

The intended results could be reached by a simple decree dismissing the Bill and the entry of a judgment in the action at law for the found sum, with costs, the judgment to carry interest from the date of its entry. The only question, so far as we can discover, is whether the decree in the Equity case should include Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the judgment in the law case do the same, in accordance with the New Procedure Rule No. 52, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. That rule is almost a copy of Equity Rule 70½, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723. The latter Rule has never been held, and for obvious reasons, to apply to exceptions to a Master's Report nor to the formal decree entered. Indeed the practice in the latter case would conflict with Equity Rule 71, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723....