*1 CITY OF MORGANTOWN ROYAL INSURANCE
CO., LTD. Argued February 9, No. 396. 1949. Decided June Mary Brown W. G. Frances argued cause, Sfathers filed a brief, petitioner. for
James M. Guiher respondent. argued the cause for A. With him on the brief was Louis Johnsov opinion Murphy delivered Mr. Justice Court. appealability questions: of an
This raises two *2 by jury denying in a a demand for trial order right jury and whether the constitutional court, applies to the trial an issue of mutual mistake. August 1947was are these. Petitioner in facts respondent hangar carrying on a at its insurance with peti- policyby Municipal Airport. insured its terms lightning against amount of loss fire or the tioner hangar completely August was de- $22,000. 20, On the Shortly proof stroyed by filed loss. fire. Petitioner respondent District instituted an action thereafter Virginia for of West Court for the Northern District alleged policy. It reformation and correction of the petitioner preceding year during had substance only hangar, in windstorm carried insurance currently policy in force was amount; same the' prior policy; parties of the intended to be a renewal paid paid premium had been was the same as that the than much less an amount insurance, for windstorm policy premium had been insurance; for fire policy through of both the inadvertence as a fire written parties express It of either. the intent and did not prayed mistake and the mutual for reformation to correct liability Peti- loss fire. a declaration of no for the for denying and filed a counter- mistake, answered, tioner Respondent' policy as written. claim to recover oh alleging facts as in the same counterclaim, answered the complaint. for trial filed a demand Petitioner' respondent (b); moved to strike the de- under Rule 38 granted and set the case the motion mand; court appealed jury. Petitioner trial to the court without for respondent, ruling. motion of from this On Appeals appeal, 713, F. and the dismissed the 2d U. S.'890. is on a writ certiorari. 335 case here first we are confronted case, of the posture In this court’s, trial of the appealability of the with decision, a final being Not trial. decree only if as appealable, all, 129 of the refusing injunction' granting 227).1 urges Petitioner (28 C. § Judicial Code U. S. Co., York New Ins. U. S. Life Metropolitan Ettelson 317 U. S. Life In each appealability. upon us conclusive in favor of plaintiff had commenced cases, of those policy; of an insurance according to recover to the terms liability, company denied of them the insurance each policy, alleging procurement fraud the' court without issue of fraud be tried to the moved that the motion, granted in each case jury. thus made' rulings held on that the and this Court review *3 were 129. § law of federal part of 129 been § substance has
The aspects other to 1891, 828, 26 and relation since Stat. history 1912 the Since procedure rigid. of has not been in has procedure the federal courts law govérning of the coalescing of of process a slow but consistent manifested of the courts. in law and sides practice equity the rules, which year adopted equity Court new that this of. procedural significant Rule Rule 23 made a start and major 1915, with step A occurred in unification. 956, which Act, the Law and 38 Stat. Equity
enactment of (a) and 274 Code. (b) §§ added to Judicial effect, these was transfer net additions to allow side, the other either side of the court to .begun action on. modified, continued, re injunction granted, “Where ... an decree, appli interlocutory or fused, order or or dissolved appeal refused, modify'an injunction is ... to cation dissolve . .” The . . may order or decree' be from 'such taken -Revised Title provision retained in has been substance 1292, 62 U. S.' C. Stat. § a new necessity commencing action,
without questions arising law permit equity determination of equitable and to allow defenses actions, in those actions granted relief to be in an equitable offered and action at law. law equity proce- of a blended partly
In this state supra. held, case, dure there arose the jury, with that order practice at common the order was one analogy to injunction meaning within the of 129. granting"an coalescing procedure of law and was com pleted, adoption of the Rules of Civil with the others, among Their was “to secure purpose, Procedure. every inexpensive determination of just, speedy, they prescribed proce identical action,” and to that end cognizable formerly law or actions, dure whether for all adoption, problem After the identical their equity. Metropolitan presented case arose Ettelson v. by the Enelow supra. argued It was that fe Li procedure unified adoption of the had so rules longer no be con could type order held injunction appealable. We sidered an not its substantial appealable, changed since the rules had parties was noting position effect, if would been court had same as it have state enjoined an at law. present validity analogy com-
Whatever practice supported cases, it is of mon-law those *4 help no here. This is not a situation where a “chan- a to denying in demand for trial can be said cellor” a a who of “judge” cognizance pending has enjoining be judge making rather of at law. This is action try will in which he one isshe as to the manner ruling himself. The pending -in a before fiction civil stay proceed- of. can sides, a court with two one which applicable is no other, is not where there ings in the other in proceeding stayed. existence ruling to be from appeal prosecuted which the in this case was is an order interlocutory in form and substance. Nothing language rules brings or the Judicial Code it within the decisions, .class of -and distinc- practice tions supported from common-law our conclusions cases no Ettelson supply competent analogy make injunction to of what any ordinary understanding is word not one. of.the
Trial by is a vital and right, integral cherished judicial system. our argued It is importance that the of an interlocutory is granting jury trial such it appealable. should Many interlocutory orders are equally important, may determine out- come of the litigation, they but not for reason are injunctions. converted into guarantees The Constitution to litigants right their courts the have cases juries, tried and Rule 38 of Rules of Civil explicitly guarantee. Procedure implements that Denial right in a case where is en- demanding party titled to rulings course error. The of the district courts gran ting, or denying jury subject trials are exacting most appeal. scrutiny piecemeal
But appeals have been encouraged. never growth of procedure the law of in the United States last during the half-century steadily has been direc- tion of simplicity and in the directness administration of justice. To that end, and with carefuU thé for rights constitutional Court, pursuant parties, specific adopted authorization Congress, the Rules Procedure, Civil abolishing procedural be- distinctions' a, and equity and establishing single tween unified practice. We would ill serve the purposes stated of Civil Procedure were we perpetuate anal- Rules ogy expressly distinctions which the rules disavow. *5 Appeals
Court of was correct dismissing appeal and its judgment is affirmed.
With disposed the case of in manner, this we do not reach the second presented: petitioner whether entitled to the issue mutual mistake.
Affirmed. concurs in judgment Mr. Justice Burton Court. Frankfurter,
Mr. Justice concurring. On a problem occasion arises which calls for a more discriminating analysis than is conveyed by phrase and equity “law are now fused” to proce indicate the dural development whereby action at law and a suit may disposed relation to it in a single litigation. case, deeply rooted histori cal distinction between an action at law and a suit I becomes Since not decisive. reverse would Co., in Enelow New York impair ruling Ins. Life Metropolitan U. Ettelson 379, S. Life I like a few S. should to add words opinion, why the Court’s I make join, clear present unimpaired. decision leaves those decisions brought In the two law was earlier cases action at on an plain- entitled policy. insurance Of course this tiff to a can- jury. defendant asked for a cellation of the of fraud. The district policy because law, action at suspending entered be tried by jury, later-begun equitable pro- until This ceeding without concluded. —trial —v/as Court was upon called construe of the Judicial § Code, appeals in limited of interlocu- allowing categories tory C. With § decisions. 28 U. S. now 1292. situation, due to the actualities of chancellor action at staying held appealable, such and as interlocutory injunction is an *6 an inter- granted' such who though the chancellor even earlier before whom the judge the same locutory order be ground of the decision pending. at law was action scope. to its Sec- no doubt as leaves Enelow case Justice Mr. Chief wrote Code, the Judicial tion 129 of Court, Hughes for' orders or decrees interlocutory contemplates . .
“. jurisdiction, equitable an of which constitute exercise distinguished injunction, an refusing granting of which a court proceedings of stay from a mere in a may grant law, equity, of as well as virtue of its inherent by it pending before cause to so as of the cause power progress to control the justice. power orderly processes of maintain the dis appertains proceedings in another court stay equitable tinctively in the enforcement equity stay or refusal vof such a principles, grant and the proceedings grant law is a by equity a court of at meaning injunction within the or refusal of an no difference And, aspect, in this makes injunc for an cases, the suit two are proceedings the action at law in which tion and . . .” same court . pending are both stayed, S. at 381-82. in equity instituted a suit plaintiff In this insured, by an instrument. for the reformation of in. and, suit addi counterclaim, way of contested The latter was a policy. on the recovery tion, sought Constitution, under the which, at law conventional action The judge trial. con to a defendant entitled the pro prior equitable until at law tinued this action are therefore, The facts, ceeding could be concluded. Here in the Enelow. case. opposite those precisely no there was intervention proceed court of ings law, at but “a stay of proceedings mere which a court law, as well as a court of equity, may grant in a cause pending it by power before virtue of its inherent progress control the of the so .cause as maintain the processes justice.” orderly U. S. at 381-82. Since interlocutory proceeding in at action law cannot possibly within brought appeal- the limited class of able decisions under 129§ the old (now Judicial 1292), Code U. S. §C. there is end to the matter.
A layman may no postpone- see difference between the ment a trial of an judge law, post- and the ponement of such an action equitable proceeding injunction. resulting an interlocutory But the Con- *7 gress has seen fit to allow an appeal from such result one and not the Nonappealability from other. of interme- in diate the federal courts a' deep-rooted, orders has been general principle limiting those courts since their estab- very lishment. A types few orders are appealable. The Enelow Ettelson presented and cases order that was a a appealable stay because it was court of of a common-law action. is not This such a stay, in affirming judgment and the the Court leaves Enelow and Ettelson untouched. Rutledge
Mr. Justice with Black, whom Mb. Justice concurs, dissenting.
I think it practice undesirable for this Court past overrule without saying cases so. effect of the TJie Metro holding Court’s is to Ettelson here overrule politan Co., Ins. 317 U. S. decided unanimous in rejects holding Court’s today^ interpretation of (28 129 of S. C. § the Judicial Code U. 227, as § 1292) given amended 28 U. that §C. section S. York in the Ettelson case New and in Enelow Life interpreta new support And to S. 379. and adopts reasons Court now that section tion of re expressly urged expressly that were arguments and Ettelson cases. Enelow jected and Ettel- aside the Court brushes Today the other unlike either this, cases, implying son man- making ruling “a case of two, is judge pending a civil he one issue in trywill ner in which Enelow and in the this true himself.” But before was at Court said the Enelow case cases. Ettelson . . cases . that the two p. that “it makes no difference of the estab- in view court, in the same pending are both pro- at law ‘proceedings distinction between lished and between national courts ceedings law and as courts of sitting when powers of courts those ” im- The Court also equity.’ sitting when as courts of from the Enelow distinguished can be plies that this case is “inter- in this case the order cases Ettelson because this was true form and But locutory in substance.” In the Enelow case Ettelson cases. the Enelow and interlocutory, it p. 383, “although at [the. Court said In the Enelow . . 129.” appealable was . order] 381) (p. of the trial court the order helct “in advance equitable.issue raised hearing of the required legal any purely law of issues.” by jury trial court’s order effect of the precisely That was issue hearing equitable case; required . by jury legál of a trial advance reformation *8 says Today Court the counterclaim. by raised issues un- any “injunction ordinary ... this order is not Enelow . . . .” In the derstanding of word or grants “in refuses that such effect Court said 383). injunction (p. . . . from today departure rest seems to. and on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Enelow case iust, 1 set out in secure the purpose as Rule “to their inexpensive speedy, every determination of action.” case, supra, adop¿ The Ettelson came to this Court after tion of spe- these rules. insurance there company cifically pointed why to Rule as reason this Court shoqld unanimously not follow the Enelow case. We rejected pointed p. the contention. We out at 191 that . . “As the Enelow case . the result of the District Judge’s postponement order is the of trial of the upon policies; may, based [insurance] practical effect, terminate action. It as effec- respects tive an injunction these issued chancel- by lor. plaintiffs . . . The position are ... no different than if a state court had from pro- restrained them ceeding in they differently action. Nor are cir- than plaintiff cumstanced was the case. The relief afforded is not restricted the ter- minology used. statute looks to substantial effect of order made.” despite
Thus our rejection unanimous of the contention in Ettelson the Court now holds that the Rules Civil displaced Procedure have both the Enelow and Ettelson interpretation of '§ of the Judicial basis Code.' The for overruling the Enelow and appears Ettelson cases to be the Court’s hostility “piecemeal appeals” the Court’s belief that the two will overruling pro- cases “simplicity mote and directness in the administration of justice.” But to grant appeal here would not sustain appeals from every adverse ruling process made in the of a trial. Denial of trial by jury is not to be classified trial, with ordinary errors, rejec- or such as admission tion of evidence. The here whole relates to the trial of the issues hear and involved: what tribunal shall resolve the evidence, judge jury? And neither sim- judicial nor are directness administration nec- plicity essarily furthered compelling two trials where one would Moreover, against suffice. there is much to be said *9 264 alleged barring appeals inflexibly
the idea of entire invalidate an may fatally substantial errors that procedure.* trial against “piecemeal dogma considering whether
In we should unduly exalted in this appeals” tois case guar .Rights Bill of of the fact that sight not lbse petitioner Had appropriate cases. by antees in a state policy suit a common-law here filed jury. by to trial entitled would have been trial, have restrained court could that event confessedly would only by injunction, all, if at 2 But under Rules 129. have been peti Rules of Civil Procedure (a) and 13 Federal by codnter compelled policy filing sue on its tioner was v. American Mills Co. the federal Cf. claim in court: Becaüsé U. 366. Surety S. American peti penalizes the Court now of that federal compulsion^ result, appeal. As right it a tioner to have facts alleged right constitutional petitioner’s postponed. is at determined Jeast óf it§ justify many prior decisions of this There aré of contentions that invoke a more considerate treatment See, e. jury. g., of trial Rights guarantee Bill of 110; Neely, 106, 109, S. Insurance Co. v. Scott Wall. 616. Bailey, v. Role Vestal, Present Potential *Moore and Certification dissenting (1949); see Procedure, Appellate 35 Va. L. Rev.
Federal Metals, Inc. Judge Machine opinion by in American Frank 2d Impeller Co., F. De Bothezat