Atlantic City Electric Company v. General Electric Company

236 dispose of the when the ed to heroin rections to Count dismiss One apartment; appel- federal information. officers entered The convictions of normally

..(3) paraphernalia Sykes lants Ruffin articles and under and Count Two diluting process heroin affirmed. used in together Sykes’ bed with found were Reversed as to count one. belong apartment; (4) a mirror in his Affirmed as to count two. ing Sykes impressed Ruffin’s with and apart print thumb found left was instrument ment, a suitable identified as analy process, and for the dilution particles sprinkled with sis found be heroin; Sykes Ruffin (5) and their the officers to admit failed

authority purpose an had been proscribed ATLANTIC nounced. CITY The absence ELECTRIC COMPA al., NY et Plaintiffs-Appellees, drug Sykes person fatal not is sustaining Under his conviction. light most favor viewed evidence GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY jus government, jury al., was Defendants-Appellants. et able to the determining Sykes was tified No. Docket 27884. guilty and com Two.3 under Count See United Appeals States Court of Cir., States, pare 9 286 Rodella v. United Second Circuit. (1960), 365 denied, cert. F.2d 306 Argued Nov. 1962. (1961); 1042, 6 199 81 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d Bourg States, 5 v. United Ledet Decided Dec. (1960), Cir., reversed and 286 F.2d upon discovery new evi remanded Cir., dence, States, Ledet United (1962); United v. Mon F.2d 737 States talvo, Cir., (1959), F.2d 922 cert. denied, L. 361 U.S. (1960); Bellah v. United Ed.2d Cir., States, 256 F.2d 958

Appellants complain also testimony and of a

admission of certain charge jury. portion of the court’s in these We no merit contentions find testimony questioned

conclude that appellants prejudicial and that

was disputed objected instruction, not the case was submitted

at time

jury, not erroneous when viewed in was charge light the entire and that it did jury. mislead the Appellant Ruffin’s conviction il- Moore, Judge, Leonard P. transportation

legal with reversed di- dissented. charge jury in the Included done, “Whoever an act causes to be quotation following directly performed U.S.C.A. if him would §2: against an States, offense the United against commits offense principal punishable “Whoever also as such.” aids, abets, counsels, justified jury finding The facts induces, commands, procures Sykes guilty its com- aiding abetting under the principal.” mission, is a statute even if it did not find him to abe prime instigator of the concealment. and York Thru-

of New York New State Authority. way City, Moore, Jr., York Thomas F. New brief, plaintiff-appellee on the Authority for Power York. of the State of New Priest, Brothers, New Reid & Coudert City, plaintiffs- York brief, on the for Light appellees Dallas and Power & Co. Light Carolina Power others. & Co. and City (Kaye, Handler, New York Milton Y., Tessier, Freeport, on N. John O. Hays Handler, Seholer, Fierman, New & Village of brief, plaintiff-appellee for City, brief), plaintiffs- York on the for Freeport. City Co., Ap- appellees Atlantic Elec. Roberts, Stimson, Winthrop, Putnam & palachian Co., Valley Elec. Power Ohio brief, plain- City, for on the York New Corp. and others. tiffs-appellees Consumers Power Co. City, Huber, York New F. Edward others. Aronson, Foster, New (Naylon, Dean & City Burns, Joseph York New W. plaintiffs- brief), City, for on York Cuddahy, Austin, Austin, (Cyrus John P. & Gas appellees York Elec. State New City, Smith, Burns, Appell York New & Corp., and and Elec. Corp., Gas Rochester brief), defendant-appellant for on the Light Patchogue Elec. Co. Ingersoll-Rand Co. Fleischmann, Sheffield, Hitch- Webster, City Edgar Barton, York New E. City Chrystie, on York New cock & Case, (MacDonald Flinn, New White & plaintiffs-appellees Atlantic brief, for City, brief), defendant- on the for York City and others. Elec. Co. appellant Elec. General Co. Powers, Coffey, Gerald Arthur G. Weil, Harry McGuire, H. F. Harold Mass., Boston, Sullivan, Ralph Warren Riddell, City (Wickes, York New Bloomer, City, Gelfman, York New Robert W. McGuire, York Jacobi & New Philadelphia, Pa., Kóhn, on E. Harold defendants-ap- brief), City, for on City plaintiff-appellee brief, for Mfg. Co., pellants H. Wheeler C. Boston. Co., Co., Lapp Insulator Clark Controller Inc., Brass McGraw-Edison Ohio Goldstein, Sidney Fenster- Nathaniel Elec. Co. General Co. City, Pachter, stock, H. New York Milton City, Connelly, brief, plaintiff-appellee The R. York on for Albert New (Victor Earle, III, Rifkind, M. Robert S. Authority. York of New Port Cravath, Moore, & York New Swaine Morgan Larkin, Lipton, N. New Leo A. Westinghouse City, brief, on the for plaintiffs- City, brief, York on for Haight, Corp. & Elec. Poor Gardner appellees of New York and others. Havens, brief), for defendant- Leiby, Boeuf, appellant Lamb & Le New York I-T-E Circuit Breaker Co. brief, City, plaintiffs-appellees for on the Brown, Wood, Fuller, Ivey, Caldwell & Light others, Power & Arkansas Co. City, brief, York on the for de- New York, Edison Co. of Consolidated New fendant-appellant A. B. Co. Chance Niagara Inc., Corp., Mohawk Power Hughes, Hubbard, Reed, Blair & New Orange Utilities, Rockland Inc. City, brief, for York defendant- Leflcowitz, Atty. Allen-Bradley Gen., appellant Louis J. Co. York, City, State of New York New Polk, Davis, Wardwell, Sunderland & Lloyd Spiegel, Sp. Atty.

Mathias Asst. Kiendl, City, brief, New York on the City, Gen., brief, York New on the defendants-appellants Allis-Chalmers People plaintiffs-appellees Mfg. Corp. of the State Co. Carrier Emil, City, City, on the Allan D. Owen, New York York Richard New defendant-appellant Square Products D brief, Elec. brief Cole for defendant Co. Mendelsohn, Griffiths, Gaynor, Close, McCarthy Rose, Proskauer, & &Goetz City, brief, City, for de- New York for defendant Ward York on New fendants-appellants Leonard Cornell-Dubilier Elec. Co. Corp. Elec. Co. Federal Pacific and

Elec. Gallop, Gould, & York Climenko New City, defendant-appellant Halpin, City, York on on New brief for Kissam & Worthington Corp. defendant-appellant brief, Cutler- for Hammer, Inc. Judge, LUMBARD, and Before Chief Seward, Kissel, Meyer, Matz & New MOORE, WATERMAN, CLARK, brief, City, for York on the defendant- MARSHALL, KAUFMAN, HAYS and appellant Corp. Foster-Wheeler Judges. Green, City, Alexander & New York brief, defendants-appellants Judge. on the for LUMBARD, Chief Inc., K. Porter Co. Elec- H. Wadsworth question for decision is whether The Mfg. Co., tric Inc. and Zinsco Elec. Prod- of existence concealment ucts Inc. Clay- 4 of the action under of a cause of § Satterlee, Stephens, Warfield & New (1914), Act, 15 U.S.C. ton 38 Stat. 731 City, defendant-ap- York on the brief for four-year running 15, of the tolls § pellant Hubbard and Co. 4B and limitation contained §§ Stickles, Hayden, Kennedy Young, & Act, 5(b) amended Act of the as Hort, City, New York on the brief for 282, July 7, 69 15 Stat. U.S.C. §§ defendants-appellants Joslyn Mfg. Sup-& 16(b). hold that and accordingly We 15b ply Co., and The Porcelain Judge Insulator Fein- we affirm and Corp. berg’s (1962), order, F.Supp. 207 613 denying motions of the defendants in Mittendorf, Casey, York Lane & New pending in 418 related actions the South- defendant-appellant City, for on the brief of New York strike ern District Elec. Kuhlman Co. complaints (1) allegations from the re- Steen, York Cleary, New & Gottlieb damages lating prior sustained to the defendants-appel- for the brief on statutory period, (2) limitation al- Sangamo Co., Moloney Elec. Elec. lants relating legations to the fraudulent con- Wagner Co., Elec. conspiracies cealment of the the de- Silberfeld, & Dan- Kupfer, Nathan involved in each fendants case.1 City, on the brief for ziger, York New Judge Feinberg, denying the defend Corp. defendant-appellant Norbute motions, ants’ opinion certified he was of the City, Meyers, York on Laporte New & controlling question that a defendant-appellant Schwa- brief was involved as to which there law was ger-Wood Corp. ground opin substantial for difference of Ellis, City, ion, appeal New York Clark, Carr & that immediate from his defendant-appellant might materially the brief order advance the ulti litigation.2 Inc. Southern mate termination We Feinberg’s Judge (1961), order has been made L.Ed.2d 7 26 was control- applicable opinion ling. additional related to nine ac in that case con- entry applicability commenced order. tions with the cerned the con- Judge Ryan, order of Chief en Pre-trial doctrine to a state cealment September (S.D.N.Y.). purpose tered “borrowed” limitation Clayton Act, action under see id. Feinberg Judge ground decided on the basis that and was decided at although that, applied, of this court in Moviecolor the decision the doctrine Cir., complaint allege Kodak Ltd. v. Eastman did not facts sufficient denied, give plaintiff F.2d cert. the benefit of it. Al- applied leave borrow” doc- granted petition for state tt law defendants’ 1292(b), federally- trine in a suit enforce a appeal, 28 U.S.C. § under to Judges right partici equitable arising created out of Friendly Smith Act, importance of 16 Farm Federal Loan pating. Because of argument (1916), Stat. 374 question before U.S.C. § we ordered sitting contained no limitation. relevant statute of banc. The the court Speaking Court, thoroughly explored for the Mr. Justice issues have been so Eighth equitable Frankfurter stated: Appeals “This for the the Court of eight is read district doctrine into federal stat- least Circuit3 at unnecessary ute of limitation.” 327 U.S. at judges we deem it S.Ct. at 585. briefly the rea do more than summarize for our conclusion.

sons Thus the fraudulent con- deci application relevant the cealment and of to federal its The intendment starting starting with Supreme when, statutes was well known Court sions 342, Wall.) (21 1949,5 Glover, in pro- to Bailey 88 U.S. came deal with v. posals federal period that all to write (1874), is a limitation into L.Ed. 636 22 subject bring the doc the to antitrust in laws are order to some statutes limitation uniformity concealment, that to a so field which had been left of fraudulent trine subject applies differing to the ap- “the statute confusion of if the plicable begin is dis state 4B, the fraud statutes. until Section run as not finally to, years the proposed enacted known after six by, becomes of or covered ” * * * legislation Ex suing. hearings, Id. 350. at committee party States, 247 reads: U.S. v. United ploration Co. (1918), 571, 1200 62 L.Ed. 435, 38 S.Ct. “Any any action enforce cause the statute applied doctrine to this under 4 or 4A section shall of action act, patents ch. the land limitations unless barred commenced be forever (1891), 43 U.S.C. 1093 559, § 26 years Stat. cause of within four Holmberg Armbrecht, 327 v. In 1166. action accrued. No cause of action existing 90 L.Ed. 743 392, 66 S.Ct. on the ef- under law barred Supreme declined to Act Court date of be re-

(1946), this shall fective Distributing though dis- therefore Moviecolor much discussion. Gaetzi us, question Carling Brewery Co., F.Supp. now positive before 205 Co. v. general Dovberg (E.D.Mich.1962); views with v. in accord 615 Dow we are Friendly opin- Judge (E.D.Pa. Co., F.Supp. expressed in that 195 337 Chemical ion, 1961) indicated. held as hereafter . Four district courts have fraudulent concealment does not toll that City, v. Federal Pacific Missouri Kansas 3. Binzler statute v. limitations. denied, Co., 310 F.2d cert. Electric F.Supp. Corp., Westinghouse 214 Electric 9 L.Ed.2d 371 U.S. 1962); Brigham (N.D.Ga., Belying primarily its 171 analysis Corp. Co., v. General Electric 210 F. history legislative § 1962) ; Supp. (D.Utah, City, Kansas Appeals 4B, do ruled as we Court Co., Pacific Missouri Federal Electric here. F.Supp. (W.D.Mo., 1962) ; Pub New lic Co. of Service Mexico v. Gen Judge Feinberg’s ruling addition In July (D.N.M., eral Electric below, other district courts have three 1962) . fraudulent concealment tolls held that May Public limitations. Service Co. S. statute 5. On “a bill Allen-Bradley (D. Clayton the Sherman and of Colorado amend Acts to 1962); Colo., provide Commonwealth Edison Co. a uniform of limitations Mfg. Co., treble-damage F.Supp. may actions v. Allis-Chalmers within 1962) ; (N.D.Ill., laws,” United States v. be instituted under antitrust 1962). (E.D.Pa., Electric Co. was introduced in the Senate and General referred cases, Judiciary. earlier district courts In two to the Committee Cong. Cong.Bec. 6493, same conclusion 81st without 1st reached Sess. vived Act.” 69 Stat. stake.8 But background do this we not believe that this congres (1955), 15 15b.6 4B U.S.C. § § evinces peri sional intention to enact an absolute Among prior bills which od of limitation be sub which would not ex failed to were several which enact ject tolling in cases of con pressly conspiracy provided cases cealment. The failure con bills enact begin would not limitations taining provisions that would em have injured party to run discovered until discovery provision bodied a in the words or had reason to discover facts hardly of the statute is ex kind of based;7 there which his claim was negative press which we think would be legislative history indications necessary to reverse so well established policy aware of issue at of the law.9 As we read the Su 5(b), modi- upon as amended Section based in violation 4B follows: laws, fies as plaintiff of the antitrust after the any pro- (or, by “Whenever civil or criminal discovered the exercise of rea- ceeding diligence, is instituted sonable should have dis- restrain, prevent, punish covered) States proof the facts relied laws, conspiracy; violations of of the antitrust such ac- including (including an action under sec- brought by but tion an action 4A, running of of tion the statute States) on behalf of the United shall respect every private of limitations in be forever barred unless commenced right arising six-year period.” of action under laws said within such any part in and based in whole or Other prior bills which were introduced proceed- complained of in said matter ing to 1955 include: suspended during pend- 4985, Cong. shall H.R. 81st 1st Sess. ency year (1949) ; thereof and for one there- Provided, however, : 8763, after That when- Cong. H.R. 81st 2d Sess. running (1950) ; of ever the the statute of lim- respect 3408, itations in arising of a cause of Cong. action H.R. 82nd 1st Sess. suspended (1951) ; under section 4 is hereunder, any 1323, action to Cong. enforce such H.R. 82nd 1st Sess. (1951); cause of action shall be forever barred peri- unles commenced within either Cong. H.R. 82nd 1st Sess. suspension years (1951); od of or within four after the cause of action accrued.” H.R. Cong. 83rd 1st Sess. 16(b). (1953). Stat. § U.S.O. Cong. (1949), 81st 1st Sess. S. See, g., Hearings e. before the Subcom- Clay- would have added to section Study Monopoly mittee on of Power of following: ton Act the Judiciary, the House Committee on the “Any pursuant to action this section Cong. Sess., 14, pt. 5, 81st 2nd ser. no. at may years be instituted within six tion (1950) 7905]; H.R.Rep. 20-23 [on H.R. after the accrual cause of action Cong. 4; No. 81st 2nd Sess. Hear- or, hereunder; any in the case of such ings Study before the Subcommittee on of upon alleged based cause of action an Monopoly Power of the House Committee conspiracy in violation of the antitrust Judiciary, Cong. Sess., 82nd 1st years laws, within six after the dis- 1, pt. 3, (1951) ser. no. at 100 [on H.R. covery by plaintiff of the facts 3408]; Cong.Rec. 10442, Cong. 81st proof which relies of he the ex- (1950) [exchange 2nd Sess. between Mr. conspiracy, plain- of such if istence Celler]; Cong.Rec. Hale and Mr. diligence has exercised due tiff seek- Cong. (1955) 84th 1st Sess. [re- ing such facts.” to discover marks of Mr. Patman]. Cong.2d (1950), H.R. 81st Sess. proposed amendments to section includ- provision tolling 9. It should be noted that a following: ing the of limitations the statute until the time “Any (including action an discovery action a violation of of is not the same brought or on of behalf the concealment, doctrine of as the fraudulent any States) to enforce beyond cause of action which involves elements jured the in- may under this section discover that a party’s be commenced failure years six after place. within the cause of ac- opinion violation taken has Our or, accrued if is, course, the cause of action is tion here of confined to the effect Holmberg discovery opinion v. of fed- is to be read into preme Court’s strong Armbreeht, eral such supra, so statute of limitations then policy that Congress quasi-Consti- ex has doctrine assumed applicable unless such it that contrary statute en- pressly provides in clear tutional dimensions that to the attempts language. unambiguous acted which put litigation potential end within of This to have the view seems been memory man —or of of at least Congressman Celler, of Ju- Chairman might practical pur- for all witnesses — House, diciary who of Committee poses be as as those unconstitutional response question stated against statutes offend Con- “In the floor the House that: case amendments To stitutional themselves. of limita- fraud or the statute specific, ques- be more were the only tion time discov- runs (Clayton Act, 4B) perti- tion read in Cong. Cong.Rec. ery.” 84th part, nent un- “shall be forever barred 1st It far more Sess. seems like- years less commenced within four ly 4B, that when enacted § regardless the cause of action accrued intended that discovery giv- date of fraud apply concealment continue as it had ing regardless rise the action Holmberg predecessors, under and its thereof”, fraudulent concealment such than it be discarded reference to statute would be in direct conflict with a legislative history. presumption. “fraudulent concealment” urged strenuously appellants have The con “fraudulent proponents of the good for never there reasons are overwhelming have cealment” doctrine tolling in antitrust limitation mostly arguments emo in their province favor — But it is the sole actions. “wrongdoers To who tional. reward weigh factors such cloaking ac their unlawful successful and understood to determine well whether through cunning, secrecy tivities with changed. long accepted to be are doctrines practices” deceptive and clandestine disposed to make such If the machinations dis then “when their change by a do so words which it must give to shield of covered” to them “the misunderstood. cannot be redress to bar the statute limitations of is af- court district order The of they by whom have victimized” those firmed. appear would unconscionable. be to City, Pa Missouri of v. Federal Kansas Judge MOORE, P. LEONARD Company, (8 cific Electric 310 F.2d 271 (dissenting). Cir.1962). be Another court chose to “Congress A the real conflict here resolution of did intend lieve upon dependent co-conspirators spin far more considerations could and weave any analysis upon impenetrable than or dissec- basic an of shroud fraudulent illegal In tion individual court cloak their of decisions. concealment to acts and substance, question fraudulently is whether Con- then render themselves im gress power enact a federal has to mune with shield of of the statute of a statute limitations under which those limitations to bar who redress extinguished conspiratorial cause of action is a their are the victims of say that, certain of of time. To machinations.” Commonwealth Edison course, Congress power Manufacturing has such but that Allis-Chalmers Co. v. Co. begin (1962, F.Supp. U.S.D.C.N.D.Ill.). the time limitation does not run to unconscionable, however, equally until fraud is discovered or becomes But aggrieved beg party poor who, to known is to widow would be case question. equitable upon penniless If some death of left her running ery concealment, of fraudulent concealment on the where has been no there limitations, of the statute of delayed involving to extend cases discov- negligence gross spouse increasing growth The of federal caused anti- bring litigation malefactor, to of some has failed trust in the 1940’s focused at- statutory upon prescribed an tention of a action within lack federal statute period. limitations field. this The neces- turning sity of to the various stat- state Every de statute of limitations is utes to which were added the attendant signed extinguish rights lawfully ac to problems jurisdiction category and of highly quired every in almost case (fraud, penalty, of action enforcement usually reasons can be ad meritorious statutory right, etc.) a created both con- excusing bring vanced failure to uncertainty. Congress fusion and then required action time—and within the addressed itself to the enactment aof many hardship may a from such result applicable Clayton uniform statute Act pronounce literally failure. take To violations on a nationwide basis. equitable that “This ment doctrine is every resorting read into federal purpose statute limita Little is served (Holmberg Armbrecht, tions” v. U. pre-1955 doctrines as counsel such 392, 397, 585, S. S.Ct. 90 L.Ed. the courts claim to emanate such 743), every plaintiff op afford Bailey Glover, is to cases as v. 88 U.S. portunity present myriad a of reasons Exploration 22 L.Ed. Wall. why unjust apply as to it would be 247 U.S. S.Ct. the bar of Holmberg of limitations L.Ed. particular his case. Armbrecht, Yet same Justice 327 U.S. said, in the same case “If ex frequently 90 L.Ed. 743. The plicitly puts legislation limit the time concerns with itself to alter right enforcing created, of, clarify there the effect or to uncertainties Congres is an end matter. The by, created court decisions. Such a re- sional statute of limitation is definitive.” sult could never be achieved if new scarcely language This is signed the kind of de light intepreted statute had to warning Congress to serve as a very designed decisions it was power of its lack of enact statute modify or overturn. discovery exception. without a Yet bal “any applies language 4B ancing equities protection between 15 or 15a under sections potential action cause plaintiffs guilty innocent * * * legislatures Any defendants, of action would generations ”. cause for have enacted such or fraudu statutes even as to fraud an action for embrace fraud cases. tolling exception conspiracy. is No lent read provided not *Thestatute does for.1 willing Therefore, unless ac- we fraudulent con there “unless has been Congress cept premise the that has no discovery of the cealment” “until power to enact statute is not sub- ambiguity, there it must If fraud”. ject tolling any including reason “after the cause of in the words be found concealment, as the situation Only if “accrued” (the year 1949 action accrued”. is existed in in which Con- gress apparently been discovered” could turned mean the con- “has serious interpreted sideration of statute in as commenc the antitrust itself be statute field) ing must be discovery.2 examined. run the date of from many Congress containing in statutes the of action under Sherman Act Causes provisions ability, injury limitation has shown its the caused when accrue some desired, pursuant conspiracy where it so to insert “after dis the act overt oc covery” exceptions Corp. clauses or to make Unexcelled Chemical curs. 131; States, fraudulent conduct. 31 U.S.C. 12 § 73 United 1817(g) ; 77m, 580, 583, (1953) ; U.S.C.A. § § U.S.C.A. L.Ed. Tessier 78i(e), 77www; 1621; 305, 309, § § § U.S.C.A. 269 F.2d 6501(e). Cir., 1959); Century (1st U.S.C.A. Steiner v. 20th any emphasize word in order 4B not contain “accrued” “to Since § provision, and make clear in the concealment” law that the “fraudulent theory supporting find it nec- limitations run this shall commence to courts essary wrongs judicially which the until at least to do covert have that been legisla- Cong.Rec. rejected Congress (101 (1955)). purposefully discovered” tively. accept adopt from 1949 But no did not There doubt that is Congressmen amendment. Patman and Celler were passage aof bill anxious to secure opinions Despite the assertions in abe “insure there shall which would that supporting concealment” “fraudulent applicable limitations uniform statute of being conducted doctrine that search the statute to all Federal so courts Congressional intent, ac- to ascertain treble-damage in actions limitations upholding tually decisions the various for anti-trust shall com- violations entirely tolling rely almost plaintiff to run until learns mence colloquy upon a in 1955 Con- between plain- provided conspiracy about the gressmen It must be Patman. Celler diligence.” tiff The need for uses due Congressmen remembered that these two such a no bill arose because there was in the unsuccessful forefront were Federal statute of limitations on treble- damage “discovery” in the to have inserted effort plaintiff actions and “a because preceding during proposed six bills years. [might] day his in court because lose report, is no evidence There have succeeded conceal- defendants ' Congressional any or otherwise of debate ing their outsiders.” assumption be written that there was to Hearings Before the Subcommittee limitations into Federal Study Monopoly Power tolling equitable until the an doctrine of Judiciary, House Committee on the 81st However, the fraud were discovered. Eighth Cong., Sess., 14, pt. p. 2d ser. in its recent decision City Pacific Kansas v. Federal 4985) (H.R. House bill Both virtually the result Electric founds 1910) (S. contained toll- bill the Senate ing colloquy. reached Court this If had been provisions. there colloquy “demonstrates states that npw being principle elevated as such no de- had intention of virtually dimensions to constitutional stroying existing doctrine of fraudu- no need have been there would say To col- lent that a concealment”. advocacy support vigorous of the toll- Congressmen loquy of two known to be permit- iniquity ing exception. The rejected es- advocates of amendment crime, ting wrongdoer his to conceal un- tablishes the intent is an immunity, winning thereby featured speculation I ac- warranted which cannot argued proponents. Others the bill’s Quite apart case, cept. from this such statutory period should be suf- that the approach have most could well serious discovery of the cause for the ficient consequences any and would enable two injury. the Congressmen, who to a col- chose have “discovery” provision (expressing to, the loquy contrary fate of or The a view enlargement language adequately any of, in the ma- described has been in of the short, rejected upon Congressional jority opinion. bill) spread In it was Rec- Congress. ord, interpre- 1955 when the bill In aid such with the court Congressman legislation finally passed, nullify any Patman was to tation by enacted Congress. recognized the need the insertion of Here there is evi- no known” after the “and become ever heard words dence that the Senate the col- Corp., (9th Cir., (1951); 232 F.2d 190 Film Universal Ex Fox Ed. 680 Film Consolidated, change, Momand, 1956); Suckow Borax Mines Inc. v. 172 F.2d 37 Consolidated, Ltd., Cir., 1948), denied, (1st c. Borax cert. v. 336 U.S. In (9th Cir., 1950), F.2d cert. de S.Ct. L.Ed. 1118 340 U.S. 71 S.Ct. 95 L. nied. Therefore, Congressmen. problem my loquy opinion The here in is scarcely quite estoppel (Glus that each different it can be assumed from Brooklyn Terminal, thereon. vote in reliance Eastern Senator cast District his nothing 770). House, to Even in there was U.S. 3 L.Ed.2d Congressmen many It substantive-procedural show how other cannot be solved the semantics colloquy in heard the or relied it The debate. voting. many practical speculation analyzed questions If to enter such is so well posed Judge into the far decision it would be more Christensen his in thoughtful opinion Brigham City majority in reasonable to assume that the in Congress Court v. voted for which did not General the bill Electric 210 F. Supp. “discovery” proviso U.S.D.C.D.Utah, 1962, contain the because not do discovery supply answer, persuasive they had eliminated from the are been as many previously rejected (at judges anon in And terrorem to bills. least trial nothing counsel) theory. finely there is and trial spun to that either show The arguments House Senate were determined to of counsel not from derived destroy existing conflicting analyses Bailey- their fraudu- Glover, they Holmberg lent concealment or that were aware and Moviecolor trium any merely jab that there periphery virate such doctrine. at the —not to heart of the issue. That is issue “discovery” may It well be whether there should be limita time “fraudulent concealment” amendment conspiracy tion antitrust actions. public should be added 4B but the policy and the morals issues which organ- practical matter, no aAs well legislation involved in such should be for ized will ever advise its vic- Congress to resolve—not the courts. Therefore, tims of its machinations. Otherwise courts in addition their may elapse years and decades before dis- power other assume a endeavors veto covery. Possibly it would be desirable Congressional over whenever enactments have no limitation in this field. statute of their views on such issues differ with But is discussion this desideratum Congress. those of acted. It en- academic. has favoring plaintiffs’ posi courts acted statute limitations the anti- many pending cases have rejected tion proposed trust field. It covery” “dis- “single Congress accept chosen amendment. courts dis- Certain Congressional disclosing true Congressional man” as approve of this action. many They “discovery” than to heed the and, intent rather reinsert clause subject. reports This effect, committee approach prece- enact court bill take appear quite con would be present over the dence statute. The re- trary Supreme Court decisions practical purposes all sult no stat- outlining the examined in clues of limitation. ute That this done intent, namely, commit guise such judicial prescience search under the reports comments tee divine the true which can intent of the Trade floor. Federal An Commission alter the effect heuser-Busch, Inc., 363 U.S. 80 S. courts’ actions. Now that the has issue ; (1960) 4 L.Ed.2d presented squarely many Ct. been so in the Union, International arising States v. out of a decisions common situa- 563; Duplex 1 L.Ed.2d tion, may 77 S.Ct. be that en- will Printing Deering, Press U.S. deavor to decide whether there should 443, 475, 41 S.Ct. L.Ed. a reasonable be time limit in Pennsylvania, (1921); litigants R.R. Co. v. In per- cases whether should Mining go Coal Benja- ternational U.S. mitted back the time of 184, 188-189, Franklin, 33 S.Ct. L.Ed. probably 1446 min who created all (1913); by sealing Binns v. United up the trouble a bolt from 486, 495, glass jar L.Ed. blue in a little to be sold knowing generations, to future little competition open pursuant to whether conspiracy.

clandestine summary, the solution I believe In aspect public policy morals public Congress and

of the situation is for clear- as enacted courts. The bill

not the discovery. ly provide There-

fore, support the conclusion I cannot enact, my opinion, majority who deliberately rejected effect, a statute

Senate House. Belcher, Dahlia

Willie BELCHER Plaintiffs-Appellants, Rice, ELLIOTT, Francis Charles

W. E. L. Lindsey, Moore and W.W. Defendants-Appellees. 14802.

No. Appeals

United States Court of

Sixth Circuit.

Dec.

Rehearing Denied Feb. Frankfort, Burke, Ky., Dale P. Pikeville, Combs, Ky., ap-

Dan Jack pellants. Baird, Pikeville, Ky. (Baird J. William Pikeville, Ky., counsel), Hays,

& appellees. O’SULLIVAN, WEICK Before DARR, Judges, Senior Dis- Judge.

trict

Case Details

Case Name: Atlantic City Electric Company v. General Electric Company

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Date Published: Dec 31, 1962

Citation: 312 F.2d 236

Docket Number: 208, Docket 27884

Court Abbreviation: 2d Cir.