*1 сourt, trial in the exer the the of the plaintiff, as husband of “2. The discretion, of her of to make awards defendant, required pay cise be per reasonably character to be included $60,000.00 as final lump sum support concept and maintenance. and in release in lieu of alimony manent against plain Quarles U.S.App.D.C. rights Quarles, and her all claims support lump right F.2d sum 57. tiff and estate. endowment, pres paid permanent right not the $60,000.00 final to be beyond clearly award in the latter cate to and ent falls alimony shall additional be joint gory. safe is intended as a means $60,000.00 Alimony taken from the deposit carrying obligation retained of out husband’s boxes defendant and by provide mentioned, $60,000.00 support; must said its amount as above deposit by boxes measured tests relation safe sound bearing taken said shall, ship objective; virtue of cannot retained defendant .it action, up judgment dividing Court in this used as the hus of the device ‘for property property. band’s to be become and continue solely.” of the defendant accordingly aspect, We will remand this to the District Court for re- item mention- regard to the With second action, entry consideration of its and for ed, appears that her husband while opinion. order consistent with this city, just their prior to absent from the opened two separation, final Mrs. Keleher affirmed; No. 10647 and No. 10649 are joint deposit their names safe boxes held in No. part, 10648 is affirmed in reversed in. belonging funds and removed therefrom part and remanded. $60,000.00. her in the amount of husband Mrs. Keleher no claim There was The action funds.
she owned these ab- respect to these with
the trial court funds, coupled when stracted alimony, $60,000.00 lump sum
award a total wife of grant to a to the amounted quote the sum,” “a $120,000.00: RICHARDS UNITED STATES. court, “which is excess of 35% * * * No. 10700. value of total husband’s] [the property, record established Appeals United States Court (Finding Fact this cause of action.” District Columbia Circuit. 6)No. Argued June 1951. Subsequent ho this action Sept. Decided 1951. Court, our District we rendered decision Wheeler, U.S.App.D.C. in Wheeler where we said right or element of owner
“absent some
ship, part equitable, legal or on the husband,
wife, property of the to order the transfer for the court error ques to her.” While property proper to real us related
tion then before
ty, underlying rea that the same we think
soning precludes the sort of division of property and other funds
husband’s recognize We
was ordered in this case. Reilly belongs еrty citing her”: “the added in the same ease that We U.S.App.D.C. 345, rights Reilly, 182 F.2d adjudicate property spouses, prop- wife award the *2 Washington, C., with Lyman, D. Josiah Kathryn Schwarz, Washington,
whom M. brief, D. C., appellant. was on the (Joseph Atty., Sommer, A. Asst. U. S. Washington, C., George D. whom Fahy, part. Judge, Circuit dissented Fay, Atty., Morris U. S. and Harold H. Joseph Howard, Bacon and M. Asst. U. S.
Attys., Washington, C.,D. were on the brief, appellee. Before PRETTYMAN, FAHY WASHINGTON, Judges. Circuit WASHINGTON, Judge. Circuit The defendant Richards convicted of grand larceny in the United States District Court for Columbia, the District of appeals.
I. We are confronted the outset Government’s contention that this court jurisdiction appeal lacks because the days not taken entry “within after judgment appealed or order required by Rule 37(a)(2) of Fed- Procedure, еral Rules of Criminal 18 U.S.C. appears criminal docket District Court contains two entries re- gard disposition case, of Richards’ namely: imprison- 1950—Sentenced to “June period ment Twenty (20) months years. Five (5) Attor- ney Lyman pres- Josiah Kirkland, ent. J.” 19, 1950—Judgment and commit- “June 6/16/50, ment of filed. Kirkland, J." appeal Notice was filed on Richards’ 27th, days behalf more than ten June 16th, after which the Government con- June date, the crucial tends is but within ten days 19th.
We think that
ap
this notice of
timely.
expression
peal was
“entry of
used
judgment”,
37(a)(2),
in Rule
explained
defined or
Criminal
is not
Goodyear,
Wall.
73 U.S.
any decisions ber Co. v.
Rules.1
found
Nor have we
Polleys
Black River
18 L.Ed.
regard.
interpreting the Rules
Co.,
requires
judg
Criminal Rule
that a
32(b)
*3
authority, though
persuasive
likewise
ment
shall
more
Other
of conviction
be
than
strictly
point,
plea,
in
looks in the same di
the
not
formality;
“set forth
must
Neely
Trust
of
adjudication
rection.
v.
Co.
Merchants
findings,
verdict
525;
Cir.,
requires
Bank,
J.,N.
Red
3
110 F.2d
32(b) further
and sentence.” Rule
80;
Heffron, Cir., 131
9
F.2d
signed by
Rosenberg
v.
judgment
that “The
shall be
Moore,
Cir.,
5
182 F.2d
(Judge United
v.
judge
by
and entered
the clerk.” As
336;
Cir.,
Rayburn,
91
8
Magruder
in
United States v.
the First Circuit has said
of
Hurley
Co., 5
162;
F.2d
In re
Mercantile
context,
similar
the clear im
somewhat
Cir., 56
Hill v. U. S.
F.2d 1023. See also
judgment
“the
plication
the Rule
that
is
of
460, 464,
Wampler,
ex rel.
298
56 S.Ct.
pre-exist
perform
U.S.
can
must
before the clerk
760, 80 L.Ed.
entering
1283.
of
the clerical or ministerial act
Cir.,
Corp., 1
177
it.” In re Forstner Chain
logi
appears
us
be
to
conclusion
572,
docu
F.2d
576. The formal
inescapable, under
cally
wording
of
reflecting
judgment
ment
and commit
we
time,
Rules.2
the same
we think
At
by
present case, signed
ment
to be
should add that
does not seem us
judge,
“On
16th
begins with the recital
this
prejudicial
of
a conclusion
the interests
* * *
day
June,
adjudged
of
It
1950
is
the defendant.
either the Government or
no
date.
and bears
is,
sure, a
favorable to the
conclusion
day;
judge
signed
may well
it on that
have
remedy
appeal—a remedy we
of
are
perhaps
presume that he
we
even
did so.
effec
inclined to
As far
undervalue.
course,
was,
day which
16th
on
of
June
Richards
im
tive date
defendant’s
of
sentence
of
open
court.
sentenced in
concerned,
prisonment
is a matter
is
that
of
But
clerk
not make
did
record
express
provisions,
governed by
statutory
judgment
docket
signed
the criminal
on
by
ruling here. 18 U.S.C.
affected
our
19th,
entry
until
made
when
June
in this
3568.
do not need to decide
We
§
“Judgment
6/16/50,
and commitment of
ap
whether,
takes an
if
defendant
Kirkland,
We think that
this
filed.
J.”
immediately
peal
sentenced
“entry
judgment”
of
entry
judgment
before
speaks.
Rule
Decisions
37(a) (2)
effectively
appeal
taken. We think
prior
promulgation
to the
however,
proper
note,
is au
that there
sup
Rules, though
controlling,
lend
thority
appeal
proposition
an
Hark,
v.
port to
view. United States
this
fully
nullity,
taken is not a
but becomes
’
290;
531,
359,
64
U.S.
S.Ct.
88 L.Ed.
320
subsequent
entry
judg
effective
Foote,
290, 295,
How.
Silsby
20
61 U.S.
v.
United
ment.
Luckenbach S. Co. v.
See
S.
Seymour
822;
290,
Freer,
186,
5
15 L.Ed.
States,
533, 535,
S.Ct.
71
272 U.S.
47
564;
822,
Cir.,
18 L.Ed.
394;
Nicholas,
72 U.S.
Rub-
Wall.
10
163
L.Ed.
Woods v.
;
in civil actions problem
contrast,
States,
Cir.,
In
5
Milton v. United
.S.C.A.
120
specifically
by
presented
Hawes,
covered
here
Hill
320 U.
F.2d
794. Cf.
79(a)
Rules
the Federal
Rules
L.Ed. 283.
58
64 S.Ct.
88
Procedure,
U/S.C.,
28
of Civil
recognize,
course,
2. We
thе time
provisions
§
U.S.C.
2107. Rule
jurisdictional
appeal
perfecting
an
judg
provides
notation of
that “The
matter,
to extend
lack
provided
docket as
the civil
ment
Swihart v.
the Rules.
fixed
the time
entry
79(a)
constitutes
Rule
judgment;
808;
Cir.,
States,
169 F.2d
United
judgment
not ef
Cir.,
Froehlich, 2
States v.
United
entry.”
many
sit
before
fective
Bloom,
Cir.,
84;
F.2d
uations,
the clerk makes
under Rule
556, 557;
T. Jensen v.
Howard
F.2d
awaiting
judgment
entry
“without
Cir.,
deavoring to
will,
after convicted
law of
jury.
any
latter
of violation of
tion from the
Territory
only that fact but United
or of
of Alas-
States
all, have before it
ka,
except
government
the laws for the
record of honorable
also
defendant’s
Army
Navy,
after
him the
and the
who on or
consequent extension to
service and the
twenty-ninth day
July, 1941,
and
pardoning power. If
President’s
hereof, entered,
enrolled
impeachment
date
permitting
rule
in, or were
the armed forces
into
inducted
valid,
we are bound
defendant is
and
serving
the United States
who
and
it,
think it follows that
consider
then we
year
in activе
than one
not less
status
exception in cases
not create an
honorably
have been or shall hereafter be
present
sort.
sep-
therefrom,
separated
discharged or
reversal
grounds
we find no
As
under
conditions from
arated
honorable
error asserted
assignments
the other
however,
Provided,
active service therein:
appellant,
District
judgment of the
that such
not be construed to
shall
Court will be
persons
include the
Affirmed.
ob-
offenses for
conviction 'has been
entry,
tained after
enroll-
the date of such
Appendix
ment, or induction into service.
“Proclamation
I have hereunto
Whereof,
“In Witness
“Granting
Persons
Certain
Pardon to
my
set
hand
caused
seal
Unit-
Armed
Who Have Served
ed States of America to be аffixed.
the United States
Forces of
City Washington
at the
“Done
States
day
the United
“By
December,
the President
24th
year
of our
America
Lord
forty-five,
nineteen
hundred
Independence
of the United States
“A Proclamation
of America the one
hundred
seven-
the United
Constitution of
“Whereas
tieth.
‘shall
provides that
President
Harry
“[Seal]
Truman
reprieves
pardons
grant
have
*7
“By the President:
ex-
States,
United
against the
for offenses
“Dean Acheson
impeachment’; and
cept in cases of
“Acting Secretary
State.”
subsequent
July
to
“Whereas
FAHY,
part
Judge, concurring in
Circuit
enrolled in
and
inducted
were
there
part.'
dissenting
and
persons
States
of the United
armed forces
appeal
I
entry,
timely
or
concur
and
induction
their
had
who
jurisdiction.
offenses
this court
has
I
convicted
dissent
enrollment been
approval
or
from the court’s
of the use
United
against the laws
Alaska, other than the
Territory
Government of defendant’s
former convic-
and
Army
of the
government
tion of an offense for which
for the
he
been
laws
had
Navy;
granted
pardon by
and
a full
the President.
purpose
The conviction was used for the
convict-
appears
such
“Whereas
impeaching
credibility
defendant’s
aas wit-
'hereafter be
or
persons who have
shall
ed
permit
in his
ness
own behalf. To
separated from the
honorably discharged or
pardoned crime thus to be used on a trial
separated
forces,
honor from
armed
entirely different
seems to
for an
offense
me
therein,
ac-
serving
after
service
active
with the nature
to be inconsistent
and effect
year ought
less than one
for not
tive status
Presidential
as described
a full
civil,
political,
them
have restored
cases,
precise
though
they
Court
de-
rights were
other
and
and before us has not been decided
conviction
reason
prived
that Court.
may not
to them unless
be restored
they
pardoned:
There
are
exercise of one
involved
Harry
powers
specifically
few
of the
“Now,
I,
President
Truman,
Therefore,
America,
Constitution,
set forth
United
follows:
President
States of
“
**
gjxaii
attorney
as an
to the bar
the courts of
grant
he
have Power
States unless he should swear
Reprieves
against
United
Pardons for Offenses
and
voluntarily
he
never
Im-
had
borne arms
except in
Cases
оr,
alia, supported
the United
II,
inter
peachment.”
(U.S.Const.
2.)
Art.
§
authority
any
within the United States hos-
upon
provision
commenting
tile thereto.
Presidential
A
Wilson, 1833,
7 Pet.
granted
such activities
to Mr.
had
Gar-
Mar
U.S.
Chief Justice
land. The
Congress
held the act of
shall said:
to be unconstitutional and said this view
“ * * *
power
As this
ex-
had been
strengthened by
a consideration “of the
ercised,
immemorial, by
from time
the ex-
pardon”
effect of the
and “the
of the
nature
ecutive of that nation
language
whose
power
President,”
pardoning
of the
which it
language,
judicial
our
and to whose
in-
part
described in
as follows:
resemblance;
stitutions
ours bear
close
“* * *
of the President
adopt
principles
op-
respecting
their
subject
legislative
control. Con-
pardon,
eration
effect of a
look into
gress can
limit
par-
neither
effect of his
their books for
rules prescribing
don,
nor
from
exclude
its exercise
class
per-
manner in which it is
used
of offenders. The benign prerogative of
son who would avail himself of it.” (7 Pet.
mercy reposed
him
cannot be fettered
page 160,
at
160.)
any legislative restrictions. [2]
Only
procedural question
de-
was there
cided,
case,
having
“Such
inquiry
to do with the
method of
arises
bringing
operation
as to
pardon,
the effect
before the
of a
Court. The
opinion points out, however,
point
on this
pardon and
all the
that a
authorities concur.
“may
punishment
A
both
pre-
absolute or conditional.”
reaches
scribed for the
guilt
offence and the
The one now before
оpera-
us states in its
offender;
full,
when
part
pardon.”
tive
that it is “a full
There
punishment
releases the
and blots out of
persons
is a recital clause that the
referred
guilt,
existence the
eye
ought
to have
“po-
restored
them the
law the
is as innocent
offender
as if
litical, civil, and
rights
they
of which
never
granted
the offence.
If
committed
deprived by
were
reason of such conviction
conviction,
prevents
before
any of the
and which
not be restored to them un-
penalties
consequent
upon
disabilities
they
pardoned”;
less
are
but this motiva-
attaching;
granted
if
tion
is not a
limitation
effect
penalties
it removes the
and dis-
pardon”
granted.
“full
Accordingly,
abilities, and restores him to all his civil
*8
any limitations we
apply
now attaсh
to
rights;
him,
were,
man,
makes
as it
a new
exercise to its fullest extent of the constitu-
gives
him new
capacity.”
credit and
power
tional
itself. The sweeping conse- Wall,
pages 380-381,
at
pages
71 U.S. at
quences
exercise are described
380-381,
366.)
18 L.Ed.
Supreme
parte Garland,
Court
in Ex
1866,
333,
approach
4
This broad
333,
366,
71 U.S.
has several
Wall.
18
times
L.Ed.
emphasized by
Supreme
cases,
Court,
and other
benign
to accord with the
in
Klein, 1871,
United States v.
prerogative
128,
nature
13 Wall.
of this
President.
128,
519;
parte
In Ex
80 U.S.
20 L.Ed.
Congress by
Garland1
Osborn v.
statute
United
States,
prohibited
1875,
474,
anyone
U.S.
had
91
23
from
admitted
L.Ed.
ample
dispose
any
analytical argu
2. This is
1.
conten-
historical and
Elaborate
upon
including
14-305,
appear
Report,
ments
in
based
§
tion
D.C.Code
(1940).
any
Reverdy
provision
pe
That
should
in
those Mr.
Johnson for
Stanbery,
special
titioner
as
and of
event be construed
to limit
Mr.
intended
par
pardon.
See,
counsel
United States.
effect of Presidential
Rath-
ticularly,
342, 349-350,
er,
evidentiary
4 Wall.
71
it deals with the
U.S.
342, 349-350,
See, also,
18 L.Ed.
rule alone.
United States v.
306.
Wall,
infra,
pages
Klein,
147-148,
13
at
mercy.” also Reference found to be errone- might be “effacing cases,” language ous.( out,” though it had offence, blotting “as opinions ably set forth The views (Carlisle existed.” never Richards, D.C., Kirkland, U. Judge Wall, 426.) 153, 21 L.Ed. page supra, 16 at below, F.Supp. 323, in the court 91 U.S. In Osborn United court, Judge Washington for this rest said the it is circumstance primarily contempla- offense obliterates the the fact that for- does erase tion. mer crime was committed. adoption century before than More said, being evidence of it is untrustworthi- Chief Lord Constitution of Justice inherent the commission of ness Trial, 1679, Reading’s England, in crime, of such remains evidence untrust- said: Trials Howell’s State notwithstanding the worthiness “ Williston, A Pardon pardon, it Does Out doth Blot if hath See Guilt?, calumny (1915). Harv.L.Rev. as liableness away all as well take teacher *9 distinguished'author and right him denies sets punishment, to guilt or “im- blot out know, pardon to the serves So, you after an act objection. all Therefore, it is a man’s proves character.” it scandal to pardon, is a re- general remains said, evidence the thereby which he is that man for proach a *” credibility. question is against the for. pardoned literally fact pardon erases the the whether 402) stated that (4 Comm. Blackstone it committed or whether crime was give to a that the pardon is the new effect of the improves necessarily character capacity, language which the Su- credit and might though do the latter. recipient, it well parte repeated in Ex Garland. preme Court concerns the use question The rather a be said there was Accordingly it cannot noted, Wells, supra, the War. to parte it be was decided Ex will
olí
can be made of
after
the conviction
citing
would be
dangerous,”
useless or
pardoned
President has
There
pages
the crime.
Greenleaf and Starkie.
N.H. at
dispute
longer
is
it
no
244-245.)
proceeded
no
can
be used
The court
to
hold
person’s competency
a
to be wit-
disability,
though
pardon
removes this
Boyd
States, 1892,
ness.
v. United
long-
presumably
dishonesty
because
no
can
If in the of the law crime subsequent trial supra) serves blot out the Furthermore, if, different crime. crime, and, agree, as all authorities restores majority quotation as the Spen- from re In competency witness, as a the old offense states, ser also “The offender purged is longer should no be available in the admin- guilt, his and thenceforth ishe an innocent impeach istration of the criminal law to man,” it is reasoning hard follow credibility.4 past that because the “is not obliterated” and “the fact that he had committed the cases, There are Baum v. indeed such as wiped crime” out, the guilt which Hill, Clause, 1843, N.Y., others, says yet purged may court be treated upon by majority, relied where it is purged as not resulting innocence said “the still goes crime to the credit of from the may yet be used as though witness.” Yet same case the guilt. were New York refers court view Blackstone that the effect of the Some additional comment upon authori give a “new credit” as well as a new might ties cited the majority be useful. capacity. also, See, Comm. 402. Case, the I read Rookwood’s Holt Bacon, at 5 references Hill 198. Reprint (1696), Eng. actually hold Cochran, Curtis 50 N.H. also ing only that competency was by a restored majority, cited person said “A pardon, only there before the court, convicted an offence known as in- law agree. and as to which all authorities famous, incapacitated witness, me, further, be a seems because, his guilt Jones, when Fed.Cas. established No. Crim.Cas., N.Y., 451, character for truth Wheeler dealt with to be so testimony shown bad what construed to wonders, then, why (The restores 4. Professor Weihofen Effect of A competence juris- (in Pardon, as a witness (1939) ) those U. of Pa.L.Rev. *10 dictions where a conviction quoted majority opinion part constitutes a in the is competence). damage to such barrier The basis as follows: “The to his credi ** disqualification witness, * as a bility legal consequence of which for a is not only evidence, conviction; is said to he a conviction the the mere of conviction is remains, according reasoning, ly to this untrustworthy, nob- that he evidence is a withstanding, by wiped pardon.” the fact not the out One States, Cir., Bryant 1930.) v. United In enabling of an granted only purpose for question only 1919, testify. state 257 F. The important witness to “in pardon admissible credibility the decided a is of was that that the ment of court jury rebuttal the evidence” of a convictiоn for of was nevertheless witness impeach had used to a witness. is been It true read that context. should 1928, 582, People Hardwick, Green, 1822, 204 Cal. 17 In v. also of Commonwealth v. 1480, fol 427, 59 A.L.R. the court P. 515, pardon said the that the court Mass. states, as lows rule set forth “for the the executive granted had been herein, expressed grave competent majority but rendering him a purpose sole of State, 1887, soundness, permitting as doubt Bennett v. witness.” In 73, be con of who had been convicted to 527, cases Curtis one Tex.App. 5 S.W. conviction, Clause, supra, with the record both fronted of Cochran Baum v. although pardoned. (269 at page 432.) P. cases, arrayed in those authorities ap Co., D. upon.5 Wallamet R. T. S. N. Oregon Co. v. are Bennett relied 1876, 90, C.Or., 88, pears pages I think Fed.Cas. No. again distinction 17,106, private credibility is a civil suit between While was not be drawn. It pardon concerns. gen crime holds a jury for the use pardon barred, “A as it on eral does not restore credit: question should be on competency profess to tes does be reversal question a the kindred only acknowledges judgment but relief Texas a tify. The court imposed it,” punishment ab a “that from view general effect a full Garland, consequences quite parte all inconsistent Ex party solves disqualification punishment, the offender makes a new where crime. of his erected, imposed offense, was gives sought him be not that It blots out his man. judgment even far capacity; and conviction. new credit and Vedin a that, Cir., 1927, McConnell, 9 eye in the extinguishes guilt law, ejеctment private par innocent as if he an action between the offender plaintiff’s (5 committed offense.” S.W. Evidence of had never ties. conviction holding perjury in Territo page 529.) The actual offered. It should be at noted that a former Chavez, perjury might ry P. N.M. upon place the footing. different only that witness’ matter a restores a Williston, Cochran, supra, p. su competency, although Curtis credibility pra, quoted on the People State New In Carlesi v. Commonwealth, as well. Martin v. York, 1914, 233 U.S. 58 L. quite Ky.Law.Rep.1928, S.W. majority quoted opinion, Ed. question. present ambiguous carefully avoided impinging A for shown. upon nature of its earlier decisions to which I have referred, larceny saying, had been grand mer conviction “ impeach the * the defendant introduced The issue is a narrow one declaration, not the credibility dying not the determination of involves report testimony accused. operation and effect of within merely: “The common states the case grant- sovereignty jurisdiction par introduced and read a requires then it, simply wealth de- ing crime. The pardon granted the deceased as to don to far cided how permitted this pardon have the United should not offense committed an (78 speak extra-territori- operates introduced as evidence.” so to been have States upon the ex- 1105, Ky.Law ally limitation Rep. as a page at S.W. at An(j «* * ground, although upon good quiry, and sufficient cannot of object worthy indulgence, man into an honest a wicked convert heard; worthy credibility hut one, and therefore confer who degree infamy left through is still to be credit of his conduct is not page 529.) yet pre- jury.” credible, must S.W. conferred after in- to have sumed *11 the convic- considering them from eluding v. DORSEY. BYAS pardoned offense tion of No. 10578. for a prosecution States in the United ”* * * subsequent state offense. Appeals 577.) page page at at S.Ct. District of Columbia Circuit. York act- holding of New state Argued 5, 1951. Oct. validly sovereignty, the Court within its
ed 1, 1951. Decided Nov. “Determining said that it was only the case before us.” the author- weight flows from upon by majority I think is
ities relied very by the nature of counterbalanced
full, unconditional unlimited can be said to fact a conviction credibility, question
material on the notv
withstanding pardon, is not decisive. necessarily
Evidence be- admissible material. A client
cause communication of might very
to counsel material rele- policy
vant. But the law forbids might
use. Numerous other illustrations given. policy So the the law should impeachment purposes
bar the use for
fully pardoned Federal offense in subse-
quent trial for a diff- permit
erent offense. To the hand which forgiveness, parte bestowed the has Ex
Wells, supra, to bring forth the offense
forgiven reproach as a forgiven, the one laws, administration of the criminal
is inconsistent act of forgiveness unnecessarily detracts from the benign
and merciful nature of Presidential a full
pardon. What party, parte third Ex Gar- Wall, land, supra, 4 366, or other uses conviction former
might be made we need not now decide. herein
The views
set forth are
met
the admission in evidence of the
after evidence
has been
Nelson, Washington,
C.,
Rex K.
D.
admitted.
If
is admissible it is
appellant.
because
takes from the Government the
Stewart, Jr., Washington,
William E.
right it otherwise would have to
use
C.,D. with whom Richard W. Galiher and
impeach credibility.
conviction to
Once
Clarke, Washington,
C.,
William H.
D.
admitted,
however,
has been
brief,
appellee.
were
as in
bar,
the case at
notwithstanding the
pardon,
efficacy
the latter
with re-
CLARK,
Before
PROCTOR and BAZE-
spect
credibility
would LON,
Judges.
Circuit
seem to have
adversely
decided so as
render
immaterial on that
PER CURIAM.
question.
appeal
Byas,
Eleanor
plaintiff
I
negligence
would
remand.
unsuccessful
in a
reverse and
suit.
Notes
See
the court.”
case,
irrelevant
ap
seems
this
Rules,
Government
Amendments
Committee
pended
here.
U
Rule
F.R.Civ.P.
Dairy
pardons,
repeat
615;
copious
De
nor
v. Borden’s
citation
Porter
Compare authority.
simply
livery Co., Cir., 156 F.2d
We wish
add
this:
Foote,
here
Silsby
20 How.
fundamental
exception
engrafted
Berman v. United
an
whether
statutory