American Elastics v. United States, Civ. 36-145.
| Decision Date | 05 April 1949 |
| Docket Number | Civ. 36-145. |
| Citation | 84 F. Supp. 198 |
| Parties | AMERICAN ELASTICS, Inc. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Gordon, Brady, Caffrey & Keller, New York City (Leo Brady, Leroy C. Curtis, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.
John F. X. McGohey, U. S. Atty., Harold Raby, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, for defendant.
Plaintiff moves, after judgment, for four categories of relief. I shall treat them seriatim.
One ground assigned for this motion is that of "new evidence". Significantly, plaintiff does not mention "newly discovered evidence". The "new evidence" consists of defendant's "memorandum for the files" dated March 15, 1945. The uncontradicted affidavit of the Assistant United States Attorney, appearing for the defendant, states that a copy of this memorandum was furnished the plaintiff many months before the trial. Moreover, it is without significance. It is merely a record of the advice given by one officer of the defendant to his colleague "that a qualified expert from the Department inspect the material now held by the purchaser to determine what percentage of the goods conformed to the samples submitted, and if the merchandise as a whole is inferior to the samples as claimed". The second ground assigned in support of the application relates to the offer of the plaintiff to prove that it had no knowledge of the meaning of the numeral "6" on the Chicago contract. Such proof of ignorance would not in any way affect the result. Both grounds are wanting in merit; the application for a new trial is therefore denied.
This application is founded upon a confusion of New York with federal practice, complicated by a misunderstanding of both.
It is the practice in New York courts for each litigant to submit proposed findings of fact which the judge is required to pass upon, endorsing each finding with the legend "Found" or "Not Found". N.Y. Civil Practice Act, § 439. These findings are made part of the judgment roll upon which appellate review is based. N.Y. Rules of Civil Practice, Rule 202; Bremer v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 1908, 191 N.Y. 333, 340, 84 N.E. 59.
In federal practice proposed findings submitted by counsel are no more than informal suggestions for the assistance of the court. Only those findings made by the judge form part of the record on appeal, Knaust Bros. v. Goldschlag, D.C. S.D.N.Y.1939, 28 F.Supp. 188, affirmed without opinion, 2 Cir., 1941, 119 F.2d 1022, and the Court of Appeals for this circuit has strongly admonished the district judges to prepare their own findings. Petterson Lighterage & Towing Corp. v. New York Cent. R. Co., 2 Cir., 1942, 126 F.2d 992, 996.
To incorporate in the judgment a recital that proposed findings were considered by the court would, therefore, accomplish nothing, since those proposed findings are not part of the record on appeal.
Such a recital would be improper for two additional reasons. Rule 54(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, "A judgment shall not contain a recital of pleadings, the report of a master, or the record of prior proceedings." In this district, the recitation of papers considered has not been the practice within my recollection. Secondly, even under the New York practice, where the proposed findings do form part of the record, a recital of the matter here requested is not made in the judgment. N.Y. Rules of Civil Practice, Rule 185; see City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. Cannon, 1942, 265 App. Div. 863, 38 N.Y.S.2d 245.
The application for the amendment of the judgment in the manner indicated is denied.
This application is granted in part. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lepore v. Vidockler
...support of a motion for reconsideration." Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). Cf. American Elastics, Inc. v. United States, 84 F.Supp. 198, 198 (S.D.N.Y.1949) (movant referred to "new evidence" rather than "newly discovered evidence"), aff'd, 187 F.2d 109 (2d Cir.),......
-
Universal-Cyclops Steel Corp., B-142344
... ... B-142344Comptroller General of the United StatesApril 19, 1960 ... v. United ... States, 130 c.Cls. 626, 633. Such rights and liabilities ... the terms of the contract. See American sanitary RAG Co.V ... United States, 161 ... warranties whatever. See American elastics Inc. v. United ... States, 84 F.Supp. 198, ... ...
-
Arnett v. Helvie
...and state separately its conclusions of law thereon. Smith v. Dental Products Co. (7 Cir., 1948), 168 F.2d 516; American Elastics v. United States (S.D.N.Y.1949), 84 F.Supp. 198. We are of the opinion that this cause did not come within any of the exceptions of the Rule above set out and th......
-
Penn Convoy Petroleum Products, B-141239
..."buyers have no right to expect, have notice not to expect, and contract not to expect any warranties at ever.' see American elastics, Inc. v. United States, 84 F.Supp. 198, affirmed 187 F.2d 109, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 829; Corp.V. United States, 68 c.Cls. 667; samuel and sons v. Unite......