United States v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation, 3315.
| Court | United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Writing for the Court | DICKINSON |
| Citation | 26 F. Supp. 259 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION et al. |
| Docket Number | No. 3315.,3315. |
| Decision Date | 23 December 1938 |
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation United States Shipping Board Merchant Fleet Corporation v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, s. 8
...A.L.R. 1487, required. In all other respects he followed the Master's recommendations and rendered judgment accordingly. 23 F.Supp. 676; 26 F.Supp. 259. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 3 Cir., 113 F.2d 301, 305. On application of the United States and the Fleet Corporation, we grante......
-
National Labor R. Board v. Brashear Freight Lines, 477.
...ordinarily have no control over the costs which follow the judgment as a matter of law. United States v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., D.C., 26 F.Supp. 259. This proceeding, however, is not an action at law. No statute prescribes the rule for taxation of costs and the cause does not appeal to the ......
-
Hallstrom Development Co. v. Lee
...8 A. 640, 5 Saddler 288, 6 Cent. 903, 19 W.N.C. 219 (1887). Ordinarily, the costs follow the decree entered, U.S. v. Bethelehem Steel, 26 F.Supp. 259 (1929), but the rule is to render a party chargeable with the costs of useless litigation for which he is responsible. Kauffman's Appeal, 112......
-
Hallstrom Development Co. v. Lee
...8 A. 640, 5 Saddler 288, 6 Cent. 903, 19 W.N.C. 219 (1887). Ordinarily, the costs follow the decree entered, U.S. v. Bethelehem Steel, 26 F.Supp. 259 (1929), but the rule is to render a party chargeable with the costs of useless litigation for which he is responsible. Kauffman's Appeal, 112......
-
United States v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation United States Shipping Board Merchant Fleet Corporation v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, s. 8
...A.L.R. 1487, required. In all other respects he followed the Master's recommendations and rendered judgment accordingly. 23 F.Supp. 676; 26 F.Supp. 259. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 3 Cir., 113 F.2d 301, 305. On application of the United States and the Fleet Corporation, we grante......
-
National Labor R. Board v. Brashear Freight Lines, 477.
...ordinarily have no control over the costs which follow the judgment as a matter of law. United States v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., D.C., 26 F.Supp. 259. This proceeding, however, is not an action at law. No statute prescribes the rule for taxation of costs and the cause does not appeal to the ......
-
Hallstrom Development Co. v. Lee
...8 A. 640, 5 Saddler 288, 6 Cent. 903, 19 W.N.C. 219 (1887). Ordinarily, the costs follow the decree entered, U.S. v. Bethelehem Steel, 26 F.Supp. 259 (1929), but the rule is to render a party chargeable with the costs of useless litigation for which he is responsible. Kauffman's Appeal, 112......
-
Hallstrom Development Co. v. Lee
...8 A. 640, 5 Saddler 288, 6 Cent. 903, 19 W.N.C. 219 (1887). Ordinarily, the costs follow the decree entered, U.S. v. Bethelehem Steel, 26 F.Supp. 259 (1929), but the rule is to render a party chargeable with the costs of useless litigation for which he is responsible. Kauffman's Appeal, 112......