Albert J. Todd, as Administrator of the Estate of Baby Todd, Deceased v. Sandidge Construction Company, a Corporation

doubts, hold that we With some present case in the separation allowances rather properly benefits” “other

are status, “seniority, within includable wage increases pay.” Unlike the regular they Borges, not become did Judge, Haynsworth, dissent- Circuit and, earnings, like plaintiffs’ part of ed. they Siaskiewiez, were rights in vacation actually nor done pay for work neither seniority. On perquisite of traditional seemingly contrary, constituted benefit, ad devised a miscellaneous bargaining collective hoc after intensive transitory purpose. order serve conclusion in this confirmed We are Ap- other Courts decisions two de Nemours peals. v. I. du Pont Hire E. (6 Cir. 549-550 324 F.2d & Randolph, 1963); Star, Inc. v. Seattle 1948). (9 There 168 F.2d 274 Cir. contrary. appellate decisions

Reversed. C., Lee, Conway appel- T.

James S. lant. TODD, J. as Administrator Albert and Ben Scott Nathaniel L. Barnwell Baby Todd, Deceased, Estate (James Whaley, Charleston, B. S. C. Appellant, brief), Moore, Georgetown, C., on S. appellee. COMPA- CONSTRUCTION SANDIDGE Judge, SOBELOFF, Before Chief corporation, Appellee. NY, a BRYAN, Circuit HAYNSWORTH and No. Judges. Appeals Court of United States Judge: BRYAN, ALBERT Circuit V. Fourth Circuit. Argued April An child’s death as re unborn sult of a to her mother tortious Aug. Decided give does a cause of action under Carolina,1 act of held, if the child District although alive, was not born the child

viable at the time of The decision was made on motion of the defendant complaint tortfeasor to dismiss the administrator of the child’s estate. We reverse. 10-1951, South Carolina Code Laws Section

76 January 9, Baby being 1963 Todd was On whose death could be healthy 8 unborn child of a live and made. There the child not gestation. passenger in aWhile months the time of the nor did it survive day, an on that mother automobile her birth. In the first feature the ease dif- violently serious shaken present. fers from the But in Hall Murphy, the front in Carolina when 236 S.C. 113 S.E.2d plunged opening (1960) a the car into an in Court of South Car- unguarded through highway recognized right left olina a of action for the neglect defendant-appellee, San- death of a viable resulting a from didge Company. prenatal injury As im- Construction to its mother where after January result, premature mediate child died on a birth the child lived for 4 through 10, 1963, and only was delivered dead distinguishing hours. The feature January a on Caesarian section that case from ours is the live by These facts were confessed the motion Thus the South Carolina ac- Court has to dismiss. injured unborn, corded an action to an Appellant and father of the Al- viable child at birth. It has not Todd, qualified go J. in bert South Carolina been say asked to further and wheth- Baby right as administrator of the er estate vanished with lifeless birth. brought Judge Todd and this action under the compelled The District felt to that reading Act, State case, follows: conclusion supra, the West However, S.E.2d 88. we do believe not person “Whenever death of a the State Court intended to raise the bar act, shall be neglect caused point to the disallowing a cause default of another and the injured a viable child en ventre act, neglect or default is such as when, here, mere was the would, ensued, if death had not very reason the child did not survive. injured party entitled to main- begin with, To damages tain an action and recover South Carolina has treated an unborn but respect thereof, person in who person personality. viable child as a liable, would have been if concept Justice Oxner enunciated this in ensued, shall be liable an action Hall, supra, 236 S.C. 113 S.E.2d notwithstanding damages, closely logic, in knitted and notable person injured, although death of the saying: the death shall have been caused un- difficulty “We have no in der such circumstances as make the cluding having that a foetus killing felony.” reached law period prenatal maturity right of an administrator capable independent where it is sue for apart person life depends upon whether could the decedent injured, may if such a child is have sued had he survived. after birth maintain an action for Price v. Richmond Danville & Railroad injuries. such A few courts have 33 S.C. We S.E. gone further and held that such an present question think resolution of the may be maintained even if the hinges interpretation statute, on infant had not reached the state supra, respect meaning “a a viable foetus the time of the in- person”. jury. [Citations omitted.] presented is not in- and we doctrine on opinion timate no thereabout. Our action of an unborn child has not been ex- liability decision is limited to pressly expanded comprehend in- natal to a viable child born McCoy, stant In circumstances. West v. (Accent added.) alive.” (1958), 233 S.C. 105 S.E.2d 88 Court held that an unborn child To balance the of action 5% pregnancy person child, fatally injured months was not whether the agrees point law negligence another, the civil this dead or born [Annotations omitted.] ours.” demarca- an artificial alive seems preserved Semble, illustrate, property if his unjust as well. To tion but enough his life should for him before be to kill the trauma is severe the protection. recovery; to no entitled less no then there could be allowing serious, the child to if less reasoning of Our furtherance survive, might recovery. Again, there is Carolina the South Court immediate, fatality the the suit if by Appeals precedented the Court prevail, not could but if the was Maryland State, in of Odham v. Use by minutes, hours, protracted a few even (1964), 179, A.2d Sherman 234 Md. 198 beyond birth, the claim could succeed. searchingly examining the 71. After Practically, grav- it would mean that the question, for the directed Court er the harm the better chance of im- by a the death of a child caused munity. Moreover, the act of it allows pre-birth injury. like conclu- tortious A to his lia- the tortfeasor foreclose own Lillo, in 182 sion was reached Wendt v. bility life of the in action would be 56, (D.C.N.D.Iowa 1960), —the F.Supp. 61 These his hands. results have sound a Judge writing trenchantly Graven under general cogency, quite aside rea- from the Additional word from law Iowa. justifying statutes, for sons the death Court Carolina argument deprived that those of their guide, but would have been a welcome we by be_deprived death should not also own pursuing policy. we believe its As by recompense of all the death. Maryland that court court and noted, opinion subject foetus is accorded the Once on the is divided. logic esse, person too, Gullborg 1964), (3 in would con- status a See Rizzo Cir. 557; Skloff, ac- stitute its death a 331 F.2d cause but see Carroll v. statute, (1964). tion under South Carolina 415 Pa. 202 9 Unable A.2d ensued”, learning quote “if to to embellish the of these deci- sions, child would have been “en- we rest our determination * * * statutory to an action and titled maintain and of South decisional law damages”. Tompkins, is vouched in recover Carolina. Erie Railroad v.Co. Murphy, supra, 113 Hall v. 236 S.C. L.Ed. 304 U.S. 82 1188 S.Ct. (1938). fixing common law attributed S.E.2d 790. The Of course a rule survival prior determinant, in to a birth an existence rather than respect property rights, as Blackstone with which Court states, began on the Law of the li- Commentaries Carolina its resolutions England, p. ability issue, simplicity. appeal 130: has the hardly might judiciary It aid the gift God, “Life is the immediate justice. every by in a inherent nature begins individual; in contem- suggested compensation It is plation an infant is of law as soon as the loss recovered can be able to in the mother’s womb. stir part by mother as of her reimburse suffering physical # # (cid:127)X’ and mental ment premature mere, or or “An sa to the still infant ventra incident womb, supposed in is But the South Carolina death statute in the mother’s purview. encompasses many purposes. It loss It wider law be bom having legacy, parents companionship capable 10-1954, estate, copyhold § made affection the child. surrender (1962); assign- guardian Johnson Code of Laws to it. have a Ry., it; & Western to have an v. Charleston and it is enabled ed (1959); use, 108 S.E.2d 777 and to take 234 S.C. estate limited its R.R., limitation, Line v. Atlantic Coast Mishoe such afterwards Pecuniary actually S.C. S.E. And it were then born. damages preme approach mother in her action for would case such injuries herself not seem to in- as this with all of them in mind. The intangible certainly item, problem put context, therefore, clude this can be anguish. weight The not the father’s reference to some considerations given items, however, point away majority’s to these is for which merits, of the case on the conclusion. trier factor to maintain the action. The old notion that under circum- complaint appellant-admin- stances en were to a child ventre Baby compensable long mere istrator Todd stated a cause since lost legalistic following. action, Only and it should not have been dis- a dead and arrayed against legalism empty missed as can be insufficient law. The action legal social will remanded for trial. considerations re- quiring the allowance of an action and remanded. Reversed long expensive child who is born to a physical cripple life as a mental or be- HAYNSWORTH, Judge, (dis- Circuit prenatal injuries cause of him senting) : through the tortious conduct of another. My Bryan expounds Brother with his responsibility suffering for the of accustomed those considera- excellence expense such a child and the of care its tions which tend to of an favor allowance upon wrongdoer should laid who death when a viable upon caused its affliction and not its in- prenatal child is stillborn as a of in- result parents. nocent jury, predicts and he that South Car- duty pay of the tortfeasor to com- olina’s Court will follow his lead. pensation injury upon for the he inflicts sup- His view suffers from a dearth of porting materials, however, the unborn child who is later born alive I and do not dependent upon seems to me not necessarily enlightened. via- think it the more bility injury. of the child the time at predict I am constrained to if this If, fact, if, is born alive and case were before the Court of injury, because it suffers and Carolina, occasions it would not follow extraordinary logical expense, approach reason majority. why wrongdoer occurs to me should We are not to decide this case on the escape because the child was not viable notions, upon basis of our or our evalua- injured, injury when unless the occurred legal tion of the social and considerations conception problem so soon after upon which lie problem. either side of the determining causal be- relation We are not to declare what we think the injury tween child’s defect be- ought be, but, law taking solely our cue comes insurmountable. from what the South Carolina recognize, course, that some courts past, Court has done and said in the we recovery have either limited cases in required predic- to make an informed quick which the child was or viable at the very tion as to what it would do if this time of or have announced the rule case were now before it. theAt same happened in cases in which it time, prediction hardly such a can be an quick that the child was at the one, light informed unless made in the courts, however, time of Other legal the social and considerations which have refused to thus limit rule.1 are relevant. The refers to might some explored of them. viability What in reason then has at them, more of injury2 got for South Carolina’s Su- to do with Brown, Ill.App.2d 727; Kelly Sana v. 212 Ga. 93 S.E.2d 187; Kneale, Gregory, App.Div. N.E.2d Sinkler v. 401 Pa. 125 N.Y.S. 93; Brennan, 164 A.2d Smith v. 2d 696. 497; 31 N.J. 157 A.2d Bennett v. Hymers, 108; Viability birth, course, 101 N.H. 147 A.2d at the time of Pipe birth,” Hornbuckle v. Plantation Line is essential to a “live misunderstanding. tively When modern answer, plainly, noth- problem? The for the Su- Holmes wrote Mr. Justice fore- ing. with one so concerned To preme Massachusetts Judicial Court possibility fictitious of all closure as one reason 1884 he advanced compelled arbi- to draw feel claims as to allowing prenatal arbitrary line, trarily the notion that, the child the notion until viability a limit- as at the time part That notion was of its mother. might appeal, ing requirement have some law with what common inconsistent quickness more use- would be much facts and with medical cedents there were purpose. ful for his The mother knows today.6 expression, Its are known quickens, its when the child and tells taking however, hesi- the first led those viability is an event which attainment say steps away tant from Dietrich unnoticed, and, passes unless birth fol- that a viable understandable restraint after, later deter- lows soon cannot be part least, not a mined. Relevance of that a child mother.7 Since we now know peg can rest time part vi- is no more a of its mother before arbitrariness, and that not even the ability after, n more of an this relic invalid manageable one. Use of preservation. notion does not deserve the touchstone of at the away steps need no from Dietrich Our support in reason. It decision is without longer Indeed, it has been be hesitant. in the face of social considerations flies has allowed that no court which observed cry for which the allowance injury prenatal a viable for to go for the benefit of a child born to a re- later declined to allow such fetus has through cripple. life as a injury covery occurred before when the Attributing viability at relevance the child became viable.8 only injury is not unrea- that limit- to me evident It thus seems ; wholly prec- ancient soned it is without ing recovery in these cases quick or not a fetus was edent. Whether is suffered after the child becomes destroyed intentionally once bore when support perversion in rea- a social without crime,3 degree upon the nature and Viability precedent. son or historical purposes inher- of estates and for ought injury be the child at time of regarded the itances the common law recognized imposter and it is as the being person from the mo- child as a upon our further influence sheared all conception, if in the child’s inter- ment of judgments. only so, do if there followed est Viability, historically and a live birth.4 Conditioning recognition an unborn irrelevance; viability, reason, is an subsequent person upon a a live child as is, injury or of an- at time very birth, however, upon a stands live any other’s death or other event analogy footing. There is solid different the live birth of the child. is rea- for in the law. There it common with social son for It is consistent it. Treatment of at considerations. significant injury is a of a rela- relic is now known that the fetus only 6. the child must term means that separate from the time of existence time of birth but conception. The mother furnishes maturity to have a reasonable sufficient protection and fetus sustenance apart expectation from its of survival circulatory birth, develops own but it uninjured. The term has system, physical, emo- and its mental and property. meaning in the law of same predetermined tional characteristics 125. 13. Blackstone’s Commentaries genes alignment two parents. 4. rule South Carolina. Carlton, S.C. 47. v. Pearson Brennan, 31 N.J. See Smith A.2d 504-505. Northampton, Inhabitants 5. Dietrich v. Ibid., p. Am.Rep. A.2d 138 Mass. personal injury in favor of allowance Little can be said him when en injury personal reasons, legal for a cause ventre sa mere. Those and mere, practical, which a child en ventre there- are unaffected his injury. unrelated rea- after is stillborn for some at the Once the cause personal injury son.9 the stillbirth is unrelated to When action for matures with injury, prenatal birth, it, course, no suffers the live will survive is, least, highly loss, subsequent it economic death of child. In the subsequent dubious will endured con- event of a death after suffering. pain too, prenatal injury, scious if the result of course, suggestion here, wrongful literally make death statute un- personal equivocally applies, a cause of action for and such an action recognized may such circumstances should be be maintained. Yet, allowed. and this is where comparable There are no reasons for they go awry, think it is if an action person- allowance of a cause personal injury under such circum- al of a child en ventre sa mere that, stances allowed under which is later stillborn. If a live birth is wrongful their construction statute, prerequisite death a to a cause of action for wrongful personal an action for prerequisite wrongful would be allowedif the death before birth death, cause of action for resulted rather than from expressly death statute is an unrelated cause.10 Live birth is a conditioned of a cause existence requisite if personal we follow the statute’s rela- of action for If the need tion of recognition maintain of a cause of action for to maintain death of a were stillborn child personal action great, might for is There then it be said too without injury no personal illogic action for if much that the substantive the child is a stillborn for an or personal injury unrelated action for later child reason, related and there is no for exists, may but not be maintain- solely death if it is stillborn for a ed because of the absence of re- any related If reason. damages. may use- interpo- coverable It be discovering fulness in reasonable answers lated here that the Carolina cases problem, birth suggestion is crucial. contain no —live shred a of rec- ognition of a such need. If such a need aspects, In its social if a line is be exists, regardless however, it exists anywhere, drawn is there much more maturity injury child’s placing or be point said for it at the of live at the time of the stillbirth. any birth point than at other after con- ception. longer greater pregnancy, The the the above, parent’s expectation As noted the child is deeper when born the and the compelling miscarriage alive there are al- reasons for the sense loss if a there is lowing him to maintain an for potential or the child is stillborn. The injury instance, prenatal for a Suppose, the child is under South Caro- stillborn, n which is not fatal. The mother recovers lina law as it, understand there could injuries injury from and, her while still car- be no recovery whether be the rying greater accidentally the child, is drowned, said to be the lesser. injury as a result of which the child dies before Whether fatal, to the fetus is can it removed if lifeless there is a for any reason, stillbirth no injury of its body mother. action for personal the fetus survives entirely its death. is majority’s argument recovery The sistent, therefore, say there is graver injury for should be allowed if no action for fetus, death of the injury recovery for permissible lesser is injury if is its cause. The are rules injury is sequitur. a non If fatal to a harmonious, and can be made to appear graver injury fetus is a than one which inharmonious, as the attempts, relegates long mental life as a comparing things only by different in either defective, recovery may be had ignoring comparables. If instance the child is born alive. injuries by prenatal' crippled sus- dren parents does suffer personal loss the nothingness viable. tained became moment spring from progres- It is a becomes viable. course, the child are, cases11 which There thing. progress is unmarked Generally, The my sive brothers. hold with viability, is attainment reaching opinions the tremendously contain that conclusion enlarged child when They analysis jump problem. no by its embraced is seen recovery born alive al- the conclusion that should In and, perhaps, its father. specific in this situation lowed circumstances, of month- loss some premise is toward that the modern trend crushing disappoint- may be a fetus old broad area allowance parents, but the prospective ment to the prenatal injury. premise true and The is loved, even alive loss of a child born necessary laudable, be in- it is not while, much is a cause for a little to be modern. The trend discriminate greater grief. along the lines of should be channeled duplicating reason and need not result course, stillborn, of When legal nor which social recoveries neither for her in an action the mother considerations dictate. damage, major items of can recover holding that a There are also cases grief. If including compensation for her prerequisite live birth is a to an companion- anticipated child’s loss personal sustained en technically compensable ship in her is not course, and, ventre mere12 action, juries usually situ- take care of the This is death of such a child.13 any unlikely ation. father the view of such scholars as Prosser14 Wright damages. net recoverable recognition They keeping Hoover, Cir., The inevi- 329 F.2d 72. great an action need for allowance of consequence of an ac- of allowance table personal for the benefit wrongful death in these circum- tion for alive, regardless child born of when multiple stances will be sustained, and of the fact that damage. same items of need. stillborn child has such particularly This, deserv- then is not I mention these considerations analogy ing reason, plaintiff. ought suggesting Neither purpose of the allowance simply nor social considerations dictate here, to control our decision recovery. suggest Supreme of a Allowance of the Carolina South viability however, enthroning here, at Court, when it has occasion to consider agree of specific question as touchstone time the the not may gravely embarrass decision more en- that theirs is the lightened by highly deserving plaintiffs, chil- and the most reasonable view Gullborg Rizzo, Cir., Service, Inc., 633, 11. v. F.2d 3 331 struction 340 Mass. 557; Lillo, D.C.N.D.Iowa, v. Wendt 182 165 N.E.2d 912. 56; F.Supp. Clerc, Gorke v. Le 23 Conn. 95, Murphy, Cal.App.2d 13. Norman v. 124 256, Sup. (1962); 181 A.2d 448 Hale v. Skelly (1954); 268 P.2d 178 Drabbels v. Manion, 143, (1962); Kan. P.2d 1 189 368 Co., 17, Oil 155 Neb. 50 229 N.W.2d Ky., Couch, Mitchell v. 285 901 S.W.2d Logan’s (1951); Estate, In re 4 Misc. (1955); State, Use Odham v. Sher 283, (1956), 2 2d 156 N.Y.S.2d 49 aff’d. man, 179, (1964); 234 Md. 198 A.2d 71 842, 152, A.D.2d 156 N.Y.S.2d aff’d. 3 Corniea, 365, Minn. Verkennes v. 229 38 800, 3, N.Y.2d 166 N.Y.S.2d 144 N.E. (1949); N.W.2d 10 A.L.R.2d 634 644; 2d Muschetti v. Pfizer & Charles Rainey Horn, 269, v. 221 Miss. 72 So. 870, 208 Misc. 144 N.Y.S.2d 235 Ashmore, (1954); 2d Stidam v. 109 434 (1955); Rushing, Okl., Howell v. 261 Ohio App. 431, (1959); 167 N.E.2d 106 (1953); Skloff, P.2d v. 415 217 Carroll Poliquin 104, MacDonald, v. 101 N.H. 135 47, (1964); Pa. 202 A.2d 9 Durrett v. (1957). A.2d 249 433; Owens, 614, 212 Tenn. 371 S.W.2d Hogan McDaniel, Scanelli, v. 204 Tenn. 142 319 In re 208 Misc. N.Y.S. Keyes (Surr.Ct.1955); S.W.2d 221 Con- 2d v. (2nd ed.) pp. 174, of Torts Law them also for the I mention death of the answer. stillborn child was denied; Supreme Court Carolina one for the death moving strongly di- it is born indicated alive was allowed. fact The that the viable, though quick, dictate. these considerations West not rection was nothing it, to do with and Hall the McCoy, S.C. In West v. willingness expressly Court indicated its of South Court S.E.2d wrong- allowing to consider recognize a cause refused Carolina though ful death a child born alive injury was sustained it was viable. was which at Surely, it cannot be understood to have womb, quick in but which its mother’s viability said that technically probably viable be- was rather than a live was deter- The Court ad- months old. cause 5Yz mining factor and the crucial distinction that the child was verted the fact reserving when, between West and Hall viable, probably not, whole em- unnecessary deci- phasis case was the absence Hall, specificallypointed sion in specificallysaid: live possibility holding viability of its * * * “ policy The considera- wholly time was immaterial. right of action which for a tions call proper If it does not so hold when a case not neces- when a child survives do it, court, comes before it will be the first sarily apply of surviv- in the absence light case, of the Hall so ever * * *” al. viability injury.16 exalted at the quoted Interestingly, sentence appears moving That Court thus to be lifted Court indicated, including, the direction I have article15 in from a law review specifically, de-emphasis employed express which had been prob- criterion in the resolution of these holding approval re of In author’s Scanelli, lems. Scanelli,it 142 N.Y.S.2d 411. In majority, therefore, as matter held essential that a live birth was law, inordinately South Carolina elevates legal recognition sepa- the fetus as criterion, though as a that crite- person, rate and that there was no process rion has been in the of de-em- personal injury of action for to a child phasization in South Carolina’s courts which was later stillborn. may be, courts, in those an irrele- Murphy, In Hall 236 S.C. hand, majority, vance. On the other S.E.2d ignores as a matter of South Carolina recognized a cause the one criterion which South Carolina’s a child born alive courts hold determinative. by prenatal whose caused in- death was jury. The there viable at the was said, From what I think time holding limited its Court inescapable Supreme clusion it, the actual case before Court South Carolina would not award recognizing referred to cases an action plaintiff largely duplicating this re- for though death of a child born alive covery. I think it would hold vi- occurred before Surely an irrelevance. ability. position It reserved its on that it would not elevate that factor as a cru- question. Thus, West, in Hall inas great cial potential determinant to the Supreme South Carolina to the adverted Court crippled detriment of children but its entire prenatal injuries suffered before be- emphasis upon question was of live came viable. I think that Court hold that this narrow claim of little merit together justify govern- West and does Hall dramatize distortion of importance ing legal principles resulting of a live prej- birth. An action for with preceding 30 N.Y.U.L.R. 16. See text footnote 8. deserving Court. in highly pending decision was assertion udice therefore, to withdraw for me Su- possible, Carolina’s South What claims.17 judg- our my clearly dissent points notation has said preme Court judgment join in the order and ment way. recognition of I do in That the Court. Judge that agree the District I controlling the decision effect of recognize a cause does Carolina South Supreme in the Court the South Carolina of a stillborn of action Fowler case. child. respect- affirm, Believing I we should my judgment of fully dissent

Brothers.

ADDENDUM Judge.

HAYNSWORTH, Circuit opinion 14, 1964, September On Supreme was Court South MOORE, Appellant, J. Harold Administrator, Fowler, v. Wood- filed in ward, in ex- which it is 138 S.E.2d KAISHA, INC., NIPPON YUSEN and the plicitly that an action held MARU, STEAMSHIP SHIZUOKA viable, death of Respondents. That in maintained Carolina. No. 14848. placing principal opinion, reliance Maryland Court the recent cases Appeals United States Court of Appeals Appeals for the Court Third Circuit. earlier con- Third which we had Circuit Argued Dec. sidered, discloses awareness Feb. Decided opinions previously this filed us in However, as an authorita- case. it stands tive declaration of South Carolina which, diversity case, unquestion- in this ably proves controls the result here

my reliable Brothers more than dicting subsequent course decision Court of Carolina.

Though judgment in this ease

filed six weeks earlier some opinion Fowler, our mandate stayed upon information that identi- cal been submitted to Court of South Carolina States, E.D.S.C., F. Tort Act was 17. Sox United under Claims States Supp. 465, is illustrative of such deserv under laws of South determinable severely least, ing Carolina, was, at claims. The was and there sub- injured accident, in an automobile sus stantial taining multiple pelvis, three months fractures carrying and the fetus she was The United States liability, later, however. a brain Three months ceded its substantive anticipated properly court delivered Caesarean section. was years that, she hold under South Carolina At trial was 2% expectan- was bad substantial life old. She cy, but, because of the brain she irrelevance. great, impairment sightless, speechless, capaci- was so without The child’s $260,000. ty recovery of limbs or even to hold she allowed a control her Liability up head. the United her

Case Details

Case Name: Albert J. Todd, as Administrator of the Estate of Baby Todd, Deceased v. Sandidge Construction Company, a Corporation

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Date Published: Aug 3, 1964

Citation: 341 F.2d 75

Docket Number: 9299

Court Abbreviation: 4th Cir.