*3 COLEMAN, Cir- Bеfore BROWN Judge. GARZA, Judges, District cuit Judge: BROWN, Circuit R. JOHN charge of an estate Beneficiaries duty of breach executor with They loyalty. prove undivided negotiating same was executor party for both same third time personal property and the of his the sale | property; “sub that after lease estate agreement as to reached was stantial” executor’s sale of the of the the terms party re property, personal the third unless deal fused to consummate agreement also be reached could property; of the estate lease and both was reached such day. Have on the same deals were closed such a demonstrated the beneficiaries on of interests substantial conflict as, under part such of the Georgia law, him burden to shift to f proving trust the lease | n respects or that fair in all profit from the he received Sne-directed to transactions? law, affirmative. we answer in the holding that even Court erred in District the burden such a demonstration after re We the beneficiaries. remained with and remand. verse by Bank, Essentially, presented exoneratе did Steve we are assuming proceeding to burden of by C. beneficiaries S. effort contrary. con- Estate, represented For once the the Ful- now Tate established, inquiries impress Bank, flict these con- ton National prove that 6,100 he of land be- irrelevant. Steve must acres trust structive or, profit the extent longing in made no him Tate received to Steve 6,100 relinquishing capacity acres he the entire his individual while received, serving Estate.1 . On account whatever as executor of the beneficiaries, Bank made. behalf of the land in tended that Steve received the Bank’s resolution of with, consequence of,
'connection
and as
District
claim
committed
fiduciary duty
of his
of un-
breach
empowered
Special
Court to a
loyalty as
of the Estate.
executor
divided
findings
fact
conclusions
make
alleged
particular,
In
the Bank
hearing
evidence,
law.
extensive
After
simultaneously leased Estate
Steve had
Original Report with
the Master filed
findings
*4
land to the
land and sold
own
of
of fact and these conclusions
agreed
Company which had
Marble
law:
convey 6,100
acres of
land
Steve
its
* *
there was no
that
“[1]
individually if,
only if,
and
as
Steve
by
C.
breach of trust committed
Steve
agree
would
of
executor
to the lease
fiduciary capacity
ex-
Tate
as
in
agree,
Estate land.
did
and thus
Steve
Tate;
of
ecutor of the estate
S. C.
6,100
by
of,
himself received
acres
virtue
* * *
serving
for,
as
partially in
that while
and
agreement
consideration
“[2]
estate,
C. Tate
as
of the S.
executor to Marble’s lease
executor
According
property.
the
of
submitted to sustain
Estate
the
evidence was
claiming
Bank,
position
Tate re-
Marble’s
that Steve
insistence on
act
Steve’s
precedent
anything
ca-
as
in his individual
executor as a condition
ceived
conveying
6,100
pacity
for the exe-
its
individually placed
the
a consideration
acres to Steve
by
long-term
position
by him of a
lease
cution
Steve
substantially
which his
the
Georgia
of
C. Tate with the
interest
estate
S.
Company;
conflicted
interest of the
Marble
bene-
ficiaries,
proceeding
and Steve’s
Fulton Na-
that
the
“[3]
the transactions once this conflict arose
of
executor
tional Bank as sucсessor
constituted a breach of his
of un-
failed to
of C. Tate had
estate
S.
the
loyalty.
divided
impres-
prove
it is entitled to the
that
upon
far,
Bank asserted
sion of a constructive trust
this
that
Once
land,
proving
proceeding
of
of
its
of
was
said 6100 acres
burden
Tate, deceased,
C.
It did
estate of Steve
an end.
not have
show
disloyal,
and
trust should
in fact
that he harmed
that no constructive
Steve was
beneficiaries,
impressed
of
be
benefit
transaction
according
Nor,
unfair.
estate
C. Tate].”
was in fact
[S.
against
Actually,
began
parties
case
as a suit
defend-
missed from the case as
granted
District Director
intervene
States and a
ant and
leave to
the United
were
against
Mrs. Lucille M.
claims
of Internal Revenue
to assert their tax
order
Tate,
Appellant,
Na-
administratrix of the estate
her
Fulton
the estate. The
husband,
Tate, alleging
Bank,
was allowed to intervene
deceased
Steve
tional
jeopardy tax
and
establish-
that
upon
assessments
liens
order to assert its claim for the
6,100
pray-
void and
estate
ment of a constructive trust
appointment
special
belonging
and
of a
acres of land
to the estate
powers
a receiver to de-
Geor-
master with
Steve O. Tate
ap-
taxes,
gia
Company. Marble,
and
termine the amount of
validity
along
priority
pellee
and
and
of liens
claims
with Mrs. Tate
here
appoint-
against
Government,
party
made
for the
the estate. After
special master,
answering
allegations
purpose
of a
the United
ment
Director
Bank.
States and
District
were dis-
the intervenor
objected
Original Report
property.
Appellees
own
in defense
This
ground
Bank, particularly
on the
contend
the Bank
erroneously placed
had
the made no such demonstration of a sub-
it,
interest,
proof upon
and the District
stantial conflict of
that even if
burden
did,
enough
“questions
specified four
under
Court then
thirty-four “questions
repre-
law to shift
of fact”
burden to Steve’s
law” and
sentative,
finally,
is,
if it
and resubmitted the case
the Master
that even
Master,
and the Master and
for his answers. The
District Court erred
ruling
proof,
hearing,
Supplemen
further
then filed a
their
on the burden of
Report
we
affirm
tal
in which he
must
since both Master and
found
proceeded
of Court
to hear all
Bank had the burden to
breach
the evidence
fiduciary duty
facts,
and found on
Steve’s
and that
it had
without re-
gard
carry
proof,
had
failed to
its
District
who
burden of
burden.3 The
findings
that
duty.
Court affirmed the
not breached his
Master’s
conclusions,
denying
contention,
To this latter
Bank
thus
the relief
sought by
prin-
counters
the Bank.
with the well-established
ciple that
if the trier of facts labored
question
in this
involved
sole
legal misapprehen-
under such a serious
proof.
appeal
legal
one of burden
is the
party
sion as to which
bore the burden
demon
The Bank contends that
it has
proof,
findings
its ultimate fact
strated
not clothed with the insulation of Rule
substantially
interest
which his individual
52(a)
may
disregarded by
conflicted with
the bene
Appellate Court.
*5
Estate, and that once it
ficiaries
gone
far,
counter-con
burden shifts to the
We deal with this
has
fiduciary
so
the
first,
Appel
by
prove
for if
he
Bank
that
tention
the
that
in his
in their assertion
lees
correct
simultaneous
District Court decided
of Estate
and sale of his
the Master and
lease
by plain-
Though
(as
the District Court’s
of
Estate
contended
resubmission
the
tiff)
by
of
specific
the case to the Master
use of
?
interrogatories
Special
unusual
finds
“Answer:
Master
passing
Exceptions
correctly
proof
method for
on
to a
that
the burden of
Report,
(b)
subparagraph
Master’s
it turns out to have been
in
above.
stated
advantage
ques-
way
“(Stated
It
excellent.
has the distinct
two
another
these
informing
Court,
became:)
of
the District
and now
tions
Court,
precisely
this
of
what
the Mas-
only
“a. Must
the Bank show
together
found,
precise
legal
ter
with
might
tempted
Steve Tate
have been
holdings on such facts.
in order
to execute
a lease renewal
agreement
of
to obtain the
questions
by
posed
3. The relevant
of law
Company
trans-
Marble
by
the
and
in
Court
answered
the Master
(as
by
Bank),
the
or
action
contended
Supplemental Report
are:
go
“b. Must
the Bank
further
and
“A. Questions of Law:
some
show that Steve Tate obtained
following para-
“1. Which of
the
negotiation
in
of his
concession
the
graphs
correctly
of
states
burden
exchange
individual contract
in
for a
proof placed upon Intervenor Bank:
by him in
concession made
behalf of
negotiating
“a. To
in
show that
contemporaneous
the Estate
agreements
simultaneously
with
negotiation
(as
of
new lease contract
its
Company
Marble
both a
and
by plaintiff)
contended
?
placed
capacity, Steve Tate
Special Master
finds
position
“Answer:
where his
proof
the burden of
is correct-
sonal
conflict
with
ly
subparagraph
(b)
stated
above.
duty (as
by
contended
In-
proof
Bank),
“2.
burden of
tervenor
Whatever
Special
To
finds Inter-
“b.
show that
ob-
which the
some benefit
ques-
tained
venor Bank must bear under
Steve Tate under his
1,
dividual contract
tion number
has
the Bank borne
constituted considera-
entering
tion for his
this burden?
act as executor
into the new lease
on behalf
“Answer: No.”
judg-
findings, upon
regard
which the
Thus, the
this
burden
ease
without.
based,
against
Bank was
proof,
of
immaterial ment
then it would be
Upon
party
trier’s conclusion
from the
which
had the burden.
sulted
proof.
If
Original
analysis
burden
Master’s
and the Bank
taint
Supplemental
erroneous,
Report
conclusion would
and
order of
fact,
findings
affirming
we
the District Court
ports,
those re
the crucial
“findings
by or
held,
apparеnt
induced
it is
to us that Master
have often
.the
from, misapprehension of
express
resulting
and District
ly
assumed and
principles lose the
trolling
proof
held
substantive
burden
52(a) and a
Throughout
proceedings
of F.R.Civ.P.
Bank.
insulation
stand.”
judgment
proof
cannot
below the burden of
most
based thereon
was the
Cir.,
Co., 5
warmly
Parkhill-Goodloe
The conclusions Davis v.
issue.
contested
Report
Original
491.6
F.2d
Master in his
Fulton National Bank
tioned
burden of
supra),
sion of the
conduct
National Bank
the Bank had
do
Report, in which he
(see p.
proof:
submitted to
on the Bank’s
of this case that The
* *
proof
“[2]
said,
Special
supra)
* *
“It has
* *
sustain the [Bank’s]
Master all
burden
In his
[3]
expressly
having
* * * had failed
it was
*
been the
implicitly condi
[N]o
* *
Supplemental
assumed
(see
required
the burden
during
burden of
held that
evidence
impres
note
*
Fulton
proof
the fairness
transactions,
basis
facts,
firmed
necessity
plex
Rather,
District Court’s view
Our conclusion that
actually
was erroneous
of, and thus
as found
asserted conflict
we
Prior
conflicting
breached
dispose
discussing
or unfairness
Judge,
question of whether
of this case
discuss,
dispenses
evidence
becoming еxecutor
much of
which
of interest.
Master and
Master’s and
of Steve’s
burden
give
going
loyalty.
on the
those
com-
rise
af-
Estate,
proposed
to Marble
proof
on the Bank
has remained
plaintiff
personally
ex
not shifted to the
rights.
Special
*6
proceedings
change
properties
Mas
and
the
ter,”
before
certain
accept
pro
findings
upon
Marble, however,
which
his
his
of fact
did
and
rely
1950,
Appellees
premised
April 4,
posal.
his
became
Steve
were
On
for
burden.4
Dis
view of who bore the
of the Estate
the executor
findings.5
many years
extensive lands
affirmed these
had leased
trict
4.
individual
asked
Appellees in a
Georgia Marble
that Steve
temporaneous
on behalf
estate
contract?
Steve
(Emphasis
“8.
“Answer: No.”
“10.
Hs
“Answer: No.”
t( proof
exchange
execution
negotiation
Is
Tate obtained
there
Is
on the Bank.
capacity
Tate received
there
for
added.)
on behalf
negotiation
any
new lease
form
Judge,
Company?
of his individual
concessions
to show that
evidence as a consideration
Estate
as to
any
were
These
evidenсe to show
of its
anything in
put
the S. G.
contract
concessions
made
proposed
the burden
questions,
new
contract
lease
Tate
with
him
for
Accord
6. 5.
ton
lees ” Dabney gia 1918, 431, question.’ Co., Ga.App. 22 96 v. Nat. Chase Cotton 1952, 668, Bank, Cir., 232, 196 2 F.2d and Phelan v. Middle States S.E. 593, Corp., Cir., 1955, 220 F.2d cert. Oil 2 mind, problems in we deem With these 929, denied, Glass, 75 v. 349 U.S. Cohen general appropriate to discuss it controlling 1260, 99 L.Ed. S.Ct. duty fiduciary’s principles governing the question. perhaps Second, and man loyalty. general generality ifested op rules, general there are two is the fact “the rule is that posing policy beneficiary area duty considerations trustee is under weighed solely in the individual must be in the in administer the trust /to benefiсiary.” concrete situation. istic scales each Restatement terest hand, first com (Second), (1959). On the one there is the vio Trusts He § pur thou duty relations: mandment he where lates “not his beneficiary thy shalt exalt above property for himself indi trust chases expounded oft-quoted vidually, others. As in the he has a but also where Judge purchase words of Cardozo: such a sub his affect “Many permissible stantial nature that forms of conduct making sale,” acting judgment com workaday id. for those world “also, added), (emphasis length, ment c those at are forbidden to arm’s property for his by fiduciary trust where he bound ties. A trustee uses something purposes,” Further id. comment own l. than the held stricter ** duty more, place. violates hon- “the trustee morals of the market Not accepts esty from a third alone, punctilio if he for himself of an but any any person for sensitive, or commission bonus honor most is then the by connection him in standard of As to this there act done behavior. Id. com developed trust." administration is un- has a tradition that (Emphasis added.) If trus bending Uncompro- ment o. and inveterate. loyalty, mising rigidity of undivided has been the аttitude tee violates any for equity petitioned he liable to the courts of when Thus, loy- profit thereby “if the trus made. the rule of undivided undermine * * * alty for by ‘disintegrating uses trust erosion’ of tee * Only particular exceptions. profit there purposes makes a own profit fi- has of conduct so thus the level by, for the accountable he is higher kept j, duciaries been level if he made,” 206 comment id. § than trodden crowd.” per third from a for himself “receives Salmon, 1928, other any or Meinhard 249 N.Y. commission or son bonus 545, 546, him compensation 164 N.E. 1. On for acts done A.L.R. Hand, hand, other and from the administration connection ought trust, is the accountable caveat that “the law he is k trusteeship received,” comment id. make so hazardous so amount * though shy added). he sponsible (emphasis And individuals will even trust, away trustee from it. “the ‘the courts does not breach impractical obligations him impose profit made should not accountable Merely vague arising the adminis through aon trustee. or remote out or (emphasis advantages possible selfish to a trustee trust. Id. § tration of ,14 However, enters (added) “if trustee are not sufficient such an ad- if he enters into transac administration “Even nection with the therefor, intending trust, even tion to make a is accountable of trust a breach for himself and commits breach of not commit if he does doing, receiving bonus.” trust in so commission nevertheless permitted (Second), profit. § Trusts to retain Restatement *9 Thus, (1959). a if the com trustee receives a comment mission or for in bonus acts done con
571 connected with the of the interests is that of the not involved into a transaction apt trust, personally, is trustee selfishness is to administration give advantage. may profit a lead him to an accountable for permitted antagonistic merely represent If to because the trust sult thereby.” indirectly placed Id. com- is affected interests the trustee under is added.) (Emphasis temptation apt many in e. ment is cases yield prompting to to the natural to Although a duties of trus “the give doubts, himself the benefit duties of than the tee are more intensive or to make decisions which favor the 2, fiduciaries,” comment some other id. § person competing third who is 6,15 general applicable rules are thе same beneficiary.” to fiduciaries.16 other Bogert, 543, Trusts and Trustees at § This is where the law draws (2d 1960) added). (Emphasis 475-76 ed. psychology, where the on behavioral Scott, (2d See also 2 Trusts 170 ed. § dealing by equity required of fair rules 1956); 502, 3235-36; 4 id. Am. at § experience. The human coincide with (1945). Jur. Trusts 311-315 And in § loyalty developed rules undivided rationale, accord with this the benefici- responses of the common- defensive ary fiduciary need show that system impulses of law nervous to self- placed position allowed himself interest. The rationale of these well- where his con- principles loyalty is settled undivided beneficiary. flict with the interest of the clear: unnecessary It is that the fiduci- show ary temptation, succumbed to this generally, always, hu- if not “[I]t is gained faith, he acted in bad manly impossible person for the same advantage, unfair, fair or bene- fairly capacities to act in two and on ficiary Indeed, was harmed. the law in behalf two interests the same fiduciary presumes dis- acted Consciously transaction. or uncon- loyally, inquiry sciously matters is into such he will favor one side as against other, The rule not intended where is is foreclosed. may beneficiary be a conflict of interest. If one compensate loss for 16. Restatement 15. 2 Accord, Lowery comment fit where it would be for ness to the tions whether or not trust. ciaries.” it is permitted duty any unexpected lation of or because erwise he has acted with receives “ est of the beneficiaries. He is not administer “In some element is more intense than Scott, 45 S.E. to violate peculiarly to account includes It Trusts principal, something (1958): duty. Thus, is the the trust of, relationships principal knowledge place principal [T]he (Second), Agency .his a transaction conducted intense § Idelson, 1903, and incidental accre- 170, duty himself in a duty has a in connection solely agent’s even at 1193: .and of a trustee to accounting the case of a duty perfect though violates no agent who, the benefi- own principal, * * * fiduciary others; in vio- § inter- bene- with, fair- oth- pay Ga. Restatement, beneficiaries.” nection tains a bonus or where constructive trust “a. Section the minds “e. “Comment: Section received duty “Where duty received received expense profit, rests (t dutiеs as [It] $ is not based on * * * * * * to the act conflict of he holds what he receives something loyalty $ for an is a fiduciary. solely applicable a broad applicable him in Restitution beneficiary fiduciaries, The rule act the rule stated for the benefit of beneficiary. receiving opposing commission principle particular good performance of his done although in violation given harm * * * receives faith, § by him in whose stated the amount.” to him and done interests beneficiary. case, if was or other prevent- (1937): in this upon it or re- of his their also but (cid:127) ) *10 572 position in conflict with the deprive may or to sustained
(cid:127)he have discharge as execu- proper of her duties any unjust fiduciary Its enrichment. Court went 124. The prophylactic: trix.” 106 S.E. at purpose and effect sole allowing punished on to note: placed in a Haley be Mrs. assert do not “We discourage flicting in order interests faith. acted bad [the executrix] eq- Though n Underthe such in the future. conduct authorities, question of * gen- uity protects a with good immaterial. faith wand, a polices with tle big it purchase may Mrs. It Haley that the be bеing trustee must avoid stick. The advantageous inwas fact placed position, and if he can- in such a argument often been This has estate. advanced, fully it, may resign, or in- not avoid rejected. often and as conflict, or, form the beneficiaries of the equity, applicable alike broad rule informing court, request ap- upon so guardians, agents, partners, execu- ** Otherwise, pro- proval of his actions. duty tors, it is the that accept peril. at his any position ceeds not to of a trustee any do relation or to or into to enter Georgia cases brief A review any the interest with act inconsistent gen- Georgia follows these reveals that beneficiary.” Idelson, Lowery principles.17 eral v. eloquent Perhaps, state- 1903, 778, 51, the most Ibid. involves Ga. 45 S.E. 117 from Clark ment of law property comes a an adminis- sale estate Clark, 1928, public 167 Ga. S.E. v. tratrix a auc- to her husband at approved Though paid the removal where the Court a fair tion. the husband purchase a officer of who had become an price from a trustee free corporation aside, held collusiоn, shares were whose fraud or set it the Court saying: trust: a trus- fundamental rule that is a “An “It administrator or executor is profit out make no for himself tee can trust with a solemn invested trustee principle is manage This- of the trust estate. estate under his con- proper honest advantage so essential to the management trol of those to the best property it; trust if interested in he undertakes encouraged take trustee is never it is to sell the- estate aggrandize- everything with for his own risks bounden to do of Geor- bring large The current power ment. gia as to make it judicial, legislative policy, price possible. Nothing both can tol- as steadily and to in one direction runs erated which conflict or into comes is, point no trustee competition one with the interests and wel- —that opportunity or be led shall fare those interested in the estate.” temptation Haley to make into the S.E. at 52. In Atlantic Nat’l Co., 1921, 158, 106 of the business of beneficiaries
Fire
out
Ins.
151 Ga.
bargaining
care, by
entrusted to his
S.E.
the executrix of
estate
indirectly,
himself, directly
judg-
dividually
or
purchased
foreclosure
***
respect
sought
against
business.
mеnts
land and
estate
to de-
Though
can
be allowed
never
from
imbursement
the estate.
Trustees
advantage
showing
rive a
that the estate
** property.
purchase
use of the trust
with which
funds
They
personal profit
judgments
though
cannot make
it had no enforce-
* dealing
property.
right
with trust
redemption,
de-
able
Court
act,
testamentary
must
ground
A
trustee
nied
reimbursement
estate,
put
for the benefit of
trust
“she
herself as
profits
provides:
such
liable to account
17. Ga.Code Ann.
108-429
§
made.”
use the trust
“The trustee
shall
profit. He shall be
funds to Ms own
way
gam
not to
tions
on their
in such a
face have
suf-
but also
been
indirectly,
directly
any advantage,
suspicions
ficient
arouse the
of certain
*11
***
to
“placed
heirs
and he owes an undivided
the estate.” Had Steve
beneficiary,
position
duty
personal
not
in
to the
and must
himself
a
his
in-
that
*
**
place
position
may
in a
where his
himself
in
terest
come
conflict
personal
Again
will conflict with the with his duties as
interest
trustee”?
the
*
* *
beneficiary.
Judge
of
District
interest
the
noted: “There could have
been,
course,
undivided
of
trustee owes an
a
[T]he
conflict
interests
»*
-» *
trust,
simple
under
the
is
fact
that once
place
position
agree
and
Marble
cannot
refused to
to Steve’s
conflicting
subject him
which would
to
sonal deal
and
unless
until Steve as exec-
temptation
agreed
expose
renewal,
or
him the
utor
duties
to
to the Estate’s lease
acting contrary
personal
to the best interests
had
a considerable
inter-
* * *
que
upon
cestui
in
trustent.
est
renewal
the lease and
acceptable
a
to
Beneficiaries of
trust
entitled
such
are
terms as would
to
be
by
Perhaps
have it
entire-
administered
trustees
Marble.
inwas
the Estate’s
ly
and
at
service
the trust
above best interest
have
to
the lease renewed.
* * *
Perhaps
suspicion.
purpose
got
anyone
that
could
gotten
require
stage.
rule is
to
to
a trustee
for the
Estate
every
position
things
simply
pertinent
maintain a
These
where
are
* *
Georgia
suspicion
inquiry stops
act
*.
is above
When-
under
law: “the
*
*
* *
placed
he
ever
has
himself when such
of inter-
[conflict
personal
Clark, supra.
that his
inter-
est]
disclosed.” Clark v.
may
or
est has
come in conflict with
Georgia
Appellees
To this viеw of
law
trustee,
his duties as
a court
pose
objections.
two
equity
never
hesitates
remove
they
First,
argue that
if Steve
In
him.
such circumstances the court
personal deal,
did make a
on his
stop
inquire
does not
whether the
this transaction was not connected with
complained
transactions
of were fair
only
trust
administration
unfair;
inquiry stops
or
when
indirectly
property.
affected the trust
such relation is disclosed.”
(Second),
Restatement
Trusts §
added.)
(Emphasis
“However,
aside,
although
put
president.
as had
The Court
we
no desire to be
*14
charge
finding.
do,
Appeals
An
a of
that Glass was
affirmed
we
party
any
conspiracy, we other
conflict
that Glass
to
fraud or
asserted
agree
hoped
counsel of the new
with the ‘Bondholders’ that the
to be chosen
corporation.
however,
upon
Court,
be
held
burden would
nevertheless
prove
they
personal
had in
him
had
that the
interest Glass
to
that
suffered
by any
being
of
no
of
acts
as counsel
the new
actionable loss
retained
enough26
company
or
could have
was not
decisions in which
substantial
he
trigger
personal
conflict-of-interest rule.27
been actuated
a
interest
to
it
not understand that
Our Frie-commission is to
these
realized. We do
refract
rigidly,
rays
applied
wide-angle lens,
or
so
focus
to
so
to
with a
then
be
spectro-
composite picture,
Restatement
into
a
literal an extreme. The
a
not
(c)
only
graph.
states
]
[§
thus
to meld.
of Trusts
Comment
We
refine
it in
the ‘trustee violates
these words:
prior appeal
in
25. For a
this extended
only
beneficiary
not
litigation,
Oil
Phelan v. Middle States
see
property
purchases
trust
where he
Corp., Cir., 1946,
trial Court considerable discre- will have to handle
tion the method it chooses including, questions, these resolve
among things, further other whether
hearings be held before the Mas- ter, Court, quite For or both. obvious advantage should
reasons full use and pro- present
be made of the record of the
ceedings Special Master. before
Reversed and remanded. COLEMAN, Judge (specially Circuit
concurring): argu-
As indicated at the time of oral
ment, given the decision of case has
me much concern. We have been forced legal highways
to travel over some clearly I feel mapped have not been Courts of last resort. In any event, agree doI that further hear- order, opin- is in and I concur ion, hope but I would that the Court or Master, may be, as the case will be ex-
traordinarily thoroughly careful un-
derstand the standards herein discussed given
and the directions herein before undertaking any exploration further
the facts. Christovich, Jr., Orleans, A. R. New
La.,
appellants.
Schonekas,
Orleans,
Russell J.
New
La.,
appellee.
WISDOM,
Before JONES and
Circuit
Judges,
BREWSTER,
District
Judge.
Inc.,
MARINE
COMPANY,
DRILLING
Fidelity
Casualty
Com-
Judge:
WISDOM, Circuit
pany
York, Appellants,
of New
case under
This is still another
turning on an oil
the Jones Act
field
AUTIN, Appellee.
Richard J.
marine,
worker’s status as a seaman on a
No. 21908.
barge.
drilling
is.
in this case
The twist
Appeals
United States Court of
appellаnt’s
dis
contention that
Fifth Circuit.
charge
judge’s
jury
trict
amounted
*17
July 25, 1966.
directing
plaintiff.
verdict
charge
not in the
We hold that that
nature of a directed verdict.
con We
sider, however,
law
that the state
applicable to maritime oil
has
workers
developed
point
proper
where
appropriate
district
case
judge to direct a
verdict on
status.
eral
notes
outlined
see