Leishman v. Associated Wholesale Electric Co
| Decision Date | 15 February 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 332,332 |
| Citation | 318 U.S. 203,87 L.Ed. 714,63 S.Ct. 543 |
| Parties | LEISHMAN v. ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
See 318 U.S. 800, 63 S.Ct. 758, 87 L.Ed. —-.
Mr. John Flam, of Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner.
Mr. Samuel E. Darby, Jr., of New York City, for respondent.
The question in this case is whether petitioner appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals within the time provided by law (28 U.S.C. § 230, 28 U.S.C.A. § 230).
This is a suit brought by petitioner for infringement of certain claims of a reissue patent. The district court made findings of fact that the claims in issue did not embody any invention over the prior art and entered judgment dismissing the complaint on May 1, 1941. On May 28, 1941, after securing an enlargement of time under Rule 6(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, petitioner filed a motion under Rule 52(b) 1 asking that the findings 'be amended and supplemented'. Petitioner requested that some of the findings relating to non-invention be amended in certain respects set out in the motion so as to show invention and to include a specific finding that the claims in issue did define invention over the prior art. Supplemental findings, intended to dispose of various other defenses asserted by respondent but not passed upon by the court, were also requested. The motion concluded with the statement that: 'Consistently with these findings, the conclusions of law should be amended to state that the claims * * * in suit are valid; that an injunction shall issue in the usual form, and that there be an accounting for past infringement.' This motion was denied on June 9, 1941.
On September 4, 1941, petitioner filed his notice of appeal in the district court.2 The Circuit Court of Appeals sua sponte held it had no jurisdiction because the appeal was taken more than three months after the entry of judgment, contrary to 28 U.S.C. § 230, 28 U.S.C.A. § 230. In so holding that court recognized the general rule that where a petition for rehearing, a motion for a new trial, or a motion to vacate, amend or modify a judgment is seasonably made and entertained, the time for appeal does not begin to run until the disposition of the motion.3 But this case was differentiated on the ground that the instant motion was not one to amend the judgment but merely one to amend and supplement the findings and conclusions. 9 Cir., 128 F.2d 204. We granted certiorari, 317 U.S. 612, 63 S.Ct. 63, 87 L.Ed. —-, to settle the important question of practice presented under the Rules of Civil Procedure.
We think that petitioner's time to appeal did not begin to run until the disposition of his motion under Rule 52(b) on June 9, 1941, and accordingly that his appeal was timely. The motion was not addressed to mere matters of form but raised questions of substance since it sought reconsideration of certain basic findings of fact and the alteration of the conclusions of the court. In short the necessary effect was to ask that rights already adjudicated be altered. Consequently it deprived the judgment of that finality which is essential to appealability. Cf. Zimmern v. United States, 298 U.S. 167, 56 S.Ct. 706, 80 L.Ed. 1118; Dept. of Banking v. Pink, 317 U.S. 264, 63 S.Ct. 233, 87 L.Ed. —-. It is immaterial that petitioner did not specifically request the amendment of the judgment, and the distinction based on this failure to request by the court below is artificial and untenable. If the motion had been granted and the requested amended and supplemental findings made, the judgment would have to be amended or altered to conform to those findings and the conclusions resulting from them. We conclude that a motion under Rule 52(b) such as the instant one which seeks to amend or supplement the findings of fact in more than purely formal or mechanical aspects tolls the appeals statute, and that the time for taking an appeal runs from the date of the order disposing of the motion. Cf. Continental Oil Co. v. United States, 299 U.S. 510, 57 S.Ct. 30, 81 L.Ed. 378.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Missouri v. Jenkins
...Cf. Zimmern v. United States, 298 U.S. 167, 169, 56 S.Ct. 706, 707, 80 L.Ed. 1118 (1936); Leishman v. Associated Wholesale Electric Co., 318 U.S. 203, 205, 63 S.Ct. 543, 544, 87 L.Ed. 714 (1943). But as respondents point out, it has also been our consistent practice to treat suggestions for......
-
Starns v. Avent
...Co., 56 F.R.D. 82, 85 n. 6 (W.D.Pa.1972), aff'd without opinion, 474 F.2d 1340 (3d Cir.1973). 33 Leishman v. Associated Wholesale Elec. Co., 318 U.S. 203, 63 S.Ct. 543; 87 L.Ed. 714 (1943); Myers v. Ace Hardware, Inc., 777 F.2d 1099 (6th Cir.1985); Marane, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 755 F.2d......
-
Chance v. Board of Examiners and Bd. of Euc. of City of New York
...from the November to the February order and that appeals from the latter order were therefore timely. Leishman v. Associated Electric Co., 318 U.S. 203, 63 S.Ct. 543, 87 L.Ed. 714 (1943); Sleek v. J. C. Penney Co., 292 F.2d 256 (3d Cir. Plaintiffs also point out that the order appealed from......
-
Hohn v. U.S.
...States, 378 U.S. 139, 84 S.Ct. 1689, 12 L.Ed.2d 760 (1964); United States v. Robinson, supra; Leishman v. Associated Wholesale Elec. Co., 318 U.S. 203, 63 S.Ct. 543, 87 L.Ed. 714 (1943). We have also held that §1254(1) permits us to review denials of motions for leave to intervene in the Co......
-
Jurisdiction and the federal rules: why the time has come to reform finality by inequitable deadlines.
...the date of the denial of either the motion or petition. 270 U.S. 151, 153 (1926); see also Leishman v. Associated Wholesale Elec. Co., 318 U.S. 203, 205 (1943) (finding that court rules tolled the time to (172) This Comment uses the term "tolling" to designate the restarting of the time to......