Hartford-Empire Co. v. Shawkee Mfg. Co.
Decision Date | 21 December 1944 |
Docket Number | No. 5203.,5203. |
Citation | 147 F.2d 532 |
Parties | HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO. v. SHAWKEE MFG. CO. et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Max Swiren, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.
Walter J. Blenko, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant.
Before BIGGS, MARIS, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
The history of this case is fully disclosed in the prior opinions of this court (68 F. 2d 726, 137 F.2d 764) and in the opinion of the Supreme Court on certiorari (322 U.S. 271, 64 S.Ct. 1014) and need not be repeated here. It is only necessary to quote the last two paragraphs of the Supreme Court's opinion (322 U.S. 271, 273, 274, 64 S.Ct. 1014, 1015), which are as follows:
On June 30, 1943 this court, pursuant to our opinion filed on that date, 137 F.2d 764, had entered an order denying the defendants' petition to vacate and set aside our judgment entered January 11, 1934, which had dismissed the appeal taken by the defendants from a judgment or decree entered against them in the district court. The judgment of the Supreme Court entered on May 15, 1944, as transmitted to us by its mandate, provided:
"On consideration whereof, It is now here ordered and adjudged by this Court that the judgment of the said United States Circuit Court of Appeals in this cause be, and the same is hereby, reversed with costs; * * * "And it is further ordered, That this cause be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the said Circuit Court of Appeals for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion of this Court."
Pursuant thereto this court on July 10, 1944, entered a judgment, which was transmitted to the District Court by mandate, as follows:
After the receipt of our mandate the District Court, on October 23, 1944, 57 F.Supp. 636, entered the following judgment:
On the same day the District Court refused to make certain findings of fact and conclusions of law requested by the defendants. The latter had asserted that these findings and conclusions were required to be made by the mandate of the Supreme Court. The District Court, 57 F.Supp. 636, held that it was governed by the mandate issued to it by our court which, it thought, did not require the findings and conclusions in question to be made at this time. The defendants thereupon applied to this court for the amendment of our mandate by adding thereto the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. 15.3 ACRES OF LAND, ETC.
...fact is to distill from the evidence the pertinent facts to which relevant rules of law may be applied. Hartford-Empire Co. v. Shawkee Mfg. Co., 3 Cir., 1944, 147 F.2d 532, at page 535. Speculation cannot be substituted for proof. The requirement is for probative facts capable of supporting......
-
Feeley v. United States
...of the trial court's judgment. I. C. C. v. Cardinale Trucking Corp., 308 F.2d 435 (3 Cir. 1962); Hartford-Empire Co. v. Shawkee Mfg. Co., 147 F.2d 532, 535 (3 Cir. 1944). "The judgment should stand if the opinion below gives the appellate court a clear understanding of the basis of the deci......
-
Western Electric Co. v. NATIONAL LABOR REL. BOARD, ETC.
... ... N.L.R.B. v. Reed & Prince Mfg. Co., 1 Cir., 118 F.2d 874, certiorari denied 313 U.S. 595, 61 S.Ct. 1119, 85 L.Ed. 1549. It was ... ...
-
Hartford-Empire Co. v. Shawkee Mfg. Co.
...and in the Supreme Court and was finally disposed of by the latter tribunal. In line with our decision in Hartford-Empire Co. v. Shawkee Mfg. Co., 3 Cir., 147 F.2d 532, at page 536, the District Court was entirely justified in so determining and in refusing to permit Hartford to reopen that......