Bowles v. Six States Coal Corporation
| Decision Date | 25 February 1946 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3624. |
| Parties | BOWLES, Price Administrator, v. SIX STATES COAL CORPORATION et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Thomas F. Garrahan, Robert Bruce Greer and A. Morris Ginsburg, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.
Charles M. Christler and James A. Geltz, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., Rufus S. Marriner, of Washington, Pa., and Kountz, Fry, Staley & Meyer, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendants.
The Office of Price Administration, the plaintiff in Civil Action No. 3624, has petitioned the Court to re-open the plaintiff's case for the purpose of offering testimony as to the selling prices of the coal sold by the defendant to Williams, Darnell and Company, Reid Coal and Coke Company, and Claflin-Sumner Coal Company, the tonnage sold to said companies and the prices paid by the purchasers of said coal to the defendant company.
Said proceeding was filed with the Court on February 14, 1946, and the Court awarded the issuance of a Rule returnable to the 25th day of February, 1946, issued to the defendant company and the individual defendants, John H. Jones and Edwin S. Westphal, to show cause why the request prayed for by the plaintiff should not be allowed.
Counsel for the plaintiff has stated to the Court that through inadvertence on his part, at the time said case was tried before this Court on January 21, 22, 23 and 24, 1946, said counsel failed to offer said testimony and, therefore, present all proof that was available in support of the allegations set forth in the complaint.
The defendant has offered no testimony and moved for a directed verdict or judgment to be entered in behalf of the defendant at the close of the testimony offered by the plaintiff on January 24, 1946.
Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law have not been filed by either of the parties to said proceeding, a transcript of said testimony having been filed by the Court Reporter in the Office of the Clerk of Courts on February 1, 1946. The Court has not read the testimony nor has it endeavored to evaluate the evidentiary value of the facts which have been presented, nor has the Court reached any conclusion as to the merits of the contention of the plaintiff or the defendants in said action.
This proceeding was filed on December 29, 1944, and counsel for the plaintiff has certainly had ample opportunity or time to properly prepare said case for trial, and there is no justification or reason existing for the oversight which was allowed to occur by counsel for the plaintiff. However, a lawsuit is not a battle or contest of wits; it is a fair struggle for a just decision and although considerable inconvenience and expense has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cohen v. United States
...trial held. See Gas Ridge, Inc. v. Suburban Agricultural Properties, Inc., 150 F.2d 363(8) (5th Cir. 1945); Bowles v. Six States Coal Corp., D.C., 64 F.Supp. 651 (1946); 6 Moore, Federal Practice, § From the evidence adduced on the trials, the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT (1) ......
-
Caracci v. Brother Internat'l Sewing Machine Corp. of La.
...with more favor upon a motion to reopen made after submission, but before any indication by it as to its decision, Bowles v. Six States Coal Corporation, D.C., 64 F.Supp. 651, than when the motion comes after a decision has been rendered although findings of fact and conclusions of law have......
-
Eastman Kodak Company v. EI DuPONT de NEMOURS & COMPANY
...1952 yarn and cited the cases of Serio v. Badger Mutual Life Insurance Company, 266 F.2d 418 (C.A. 5, 1959) and Bowles v. Six States Coal Corp., 64 F.Supp. 651 (W.D.Pa.1946). A federal court has the power to reverse and remand, where an administrative agency erroneously excludes evidence. D......
-
Bowles v. Vance
... ... Bowles, Price Administrator, Em.App., 149 F.2d page 364; Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. page 389, 37 S.Ct. 387, 61 L.Ed. 791 ... The question, therefore, arises ... ...