*1 good books, in the and the evidence is
for what it is worth. a matter As
course, hardly in a anything it is worth Clements, Ga.
doubtful case.” White v.
232, 242.2 care, impressed patience,
We are efforts
and wisdom of the trial court in its parties fair diffi-
to assure the trial unseemly
cult and find no issues. We court, rulings
error in
judgment is therefore affirmed. v. MILLS.
SCHWARTZ
No. Docket 22036. Appeals
United States Court of
Second Circuit.
Argued Oct.
Decided Nov.
Frаnk, Judge, Circuit dissented. proof race-ancestry family”. Georgia Code, 2. The rule 38-303, as to Section Allen, is not so strict as the rule as to Lamar v. 108 Ga. 33 S.E. pedigree which confines evidence of reputation “general repute *2 Simon,
Joseph City Lewis of New York Cohen, City, (Rubin of New York on the brief), petitioning creditor-appellant. City, Welling, of New York N. William appellee. SWAN, Judge, Before Chief FRANK, Judges. CLARK and Circuit CLARK, Judge. Circuit validity appeal attacks the This appointment bankruptcy of a trustee in ma'de a referee on failure of choice objecting creditors. An challenged right of another claimant vote, -repeats challenge here review, petition for of his denial action, by affirmance of the referee’s court. district Corp., bankrupt is A Grade Foods adjudicated petition on a which was filed 22, 1950, by appellant December and other explicit. notably was us refers creditors’ clear creditors. The first individuals, eight primarily corpora- since February held on Some relative, officer, appeared, tion cannot presenting claims or director however, this, $93,000 $100,000. It also limited to stock- about Of *3 presented for Thus the lan- up was made of the claim holders Co., Inc., by guage appear to be in- Packing New York Meat of the statute Schneider, fifty applicable Meat, president per cent York the claimant and to New its stockholder, corporation. president and West Hills Park likewise Memorial Doneca, Cir., 374, bankrupt half owner of A. v. 9 131F.2d Grade objections creditors, Over оf other petitioner go But seeks to behind permitted referee claim to voted this corporate form, Pepper Litton, citing trustee; in con- the election and in 281, 238, 308 U.S. 60 84 L.Ed. S.Ct. sequence neither of the two candidates Taylor Electric v. Standard Gas & upon necessary being voted received the 59 83 L.Ed. U.S. S.Ct. majority in both number and amount of bankruptcy 669. It is course true claims, required by of the Bank- 56§ pierce proverbial courts can and must ruptcy Act, Thereupon 11 U.S.C.A. § corporate the interests veil in of substan person the referee chose the trustee in the justice tial subordinate claims Mills, Henry serving A. who had been corporate affiliates individual insiders appointment by as receiver under the dis- advantage who have obtained unfair trict court and who wаs also the nominee position. from favored we their But do par- of the New York Meat interests. All expressed not think that the doctrines agreed qualified ties that Mills was both .and in such cover cases the situation at bar. disinterested. Nonetheless creditor mechanically For subordination is not auto and, sought by review court district identity showing matic between there, losing appeals now to us. the stockholders and officers claimant corporations;
Petitioner’s first contention relies and debtor have tradi upon the both tionally New York Meat the elements of facts stressed fraud family injury interests, A corporations, Grade are to the debtor actual by illegality owned and controlled the same indi have thus held that mere under viduals, purchase that their officesare the antitrust laws in the of a claim located building, require same and that affairs would subordination. the business West not Tyler, Cir., by each have been dominated 52nd Theatre Co. F.2d long tra intercompany given dition of 128. Petitioner here no hint He transactions. argues conveyance, therefore of fraudulent even even manufac though New claim, York directly mismanagement. tured own Further does A Grade stock, objection it is equity he makes no on the broad nevertheless within the disfran provision chising ground bankrupt election is a, added to con sub. § Act, trolled, a, ground a valid by U.S.C. sub. had the Chan reversal dler support Amendments been adduced. That section presently important part McGill, provides now true bankrupt, that the creditors of a Brewery that in In re Loewеr’s “exclusive Gambrinus bankrupt’s or, Co., Cir., relatives where the this court affirmed corporation, is a D.C.S.D.N.Y., F.Supp. 909, hold, exclusive of its members, officers, stock-holders or upon objections and a full trial filed the members of its trustee, board of corpora directors or a claim of a solvent trustees or of other similar controlling having the same stockholders bodies,” appoint trustee, shall pro debtor should be subordinated to the claims appointment vision the court creditors. this was stated quoted law, creditors fail act. applied This lan as an-absolute rule of to be guage employed thus injustice cause, notwithstanding might overturn the older tradition which allowed these classes to as would the case where corporation vote election of a trustee was itself insolvent and its seems con- claim” and “the consideration therefor.” prejudiced. On the
own creditors thus opinion report accepted of New York trary, filed the first Meat’s form, expressly described the consideration for the the situation the case eliminates “money corporation debt as loaned and borrowed of the creditor where creditors Claimant, affected; Alleged Bankrupt the the adversely they are show that tenor; goods, opinion clearly of like concurring wares merchandise sold and Bankrupt” merely in delivered to the said' judge concurs while the third special request. latter’s instance and particular result. equitable subordination Even where speak Some the older do cases indicated, appears judgment grounds statement, compiled in terms of a detailed this effect at reservation to without *4 care,” of the “with meticulous considera efficacy, it is “because is of dubious outset tion for the claim. cases cited in particular of-a state of affairs as on a based Bankruptcy. Collier on 14th Ed. multiplicity and renewal time and invites considering or not 1941. Without whether litigation administration of if and as the exacting requirements can have solvency. tem- -It progresses toward meaning day-to-day in the realities real porary only.” 3 on Bank- Collier solution meetings, of creditors’ we think the better Moreover, ruptcy 14th Ed. 1941. rule is no error will lie if there was inject issue a troublesome would serve ground reasonable the for allowancе. See purpose is to proceedings whose into initial Co., D.C.Mass., In re Rosenfeld-Goldman proceed ex- fiduciary who can elect a court F. 921. Proof of Claim should Hence conserving of the estate peditiously to the comply requirement be held to with the and, be, scrutiny if need the careful and the if for of consideration the statement At presented. least rejection of claims thereby supplied creditors and trustees are where result a considerable trial there must enough information to the circum explora- any, would need equities, giving the debt to be able stances rise now asserts tion; thus the trustee pass validity, legality, to test on its and he pursuant the referee to direction of accuracy. substantial alleged recovеr an brought suit to bankrupt to preferential payment the Here we think Proof suffi from petitioner’s voting nominee. for cient under this functional test. does not of those one appear petitioning not owe election the creditors or a trustee should Since actually must sue for restora- were harmed or whom he the trustee later Stowe, estate, bankrupt’s the statement. the succinctness of the misled of D.C.N.D.Cal., deficiency knowledge In re Anson Any 235 F. was in fact D.C.N.D.Tex., Co., during meeting. the creditors’ supplied Mercantile require adjudica- personal clearly to his knowl would testified this issue Schneider $20,000, can be settled. at or more subordination least edge tion before of loans indicate surely impasse circumstances create the when sufficient tо than unjust would be trustee. He also testified that subordination selection the delay company trial. That books showed the bank no such that the should be pending approximately $93,000, was at For there rupt here. claimant the case owed loaned, part money York Meat petition to force New the greater the time appears to be insolvency; and it now meat. In addition there was into balance Chapter report X for the voluntary reorganization in of accountants offered showing exact proceedings. committee Hence subordination creditors’ distinctly its creditors. as disclosed the bank unfair to claimed amount rupt’s was excluded books. This petitioner contends that even if Next of reasons. Had disqualified without statemеnt referee not thus York Meat is New resolved themselves into proceedings voting, Proof of Claim failed its validity a, as to the the merits requirements a trial on satisfy sub. of § specifies might have a, such evidence sub. U.S.C.A. hearsay. circum Under the considered “setting under oath -forth statement exactly proportion here, sup stances we think it owned in same all available plement parte Packing stock York Meat Co. the ex Proof of New statement companies. of Claim. See Memorial Park Schneider President of both West Hills Doneca, supra. As Packing Petitioner did not as President of Meat $93,000 proof sug sert that no claim all he filed on behalf existed its gest naming proxy against claim himself as fraudulent transactions between claim— — request bankrupt company. ant Nor did he held, adjournment make a formal attack at which the he purpose testified, Its claim. allowance for the was examined under oath and (con- vote was therefore not error. first as President Co. Bradley, cerning claim), Furriers v. F. then Sloan’s 2d 757. President of (concerning filing schedules). He shifted request ad Petitioner an mercurially capacity another, from one journment the ground that an involun resembling “doubles,” play- actor tary petition against New York Meat was hero’s both hero villainous days bankruptcy to be tried three Obviously, twin brother. came court, complains and now referee’s *5 claim, the vote Meat Co.’s one could request. showing His grant refusal his tell whether his motivation that of was best; injury quite of attenuated at bankrupt half-owner thе of half-owner hope apparently based on it was the company of asserting a creditor’s claim. adjudi proceedings result in the split- If ever there was an instance by cation, appointment followed the of a personality allegiance, or dual this is it.1 ap who would vote with him. trustee occurred, Schneider, proxy, the pears that in fact the trial voted Meat Co.’s never as $93,000claim Mills. subsequently for All other York Meat filed the credi- and New objected tors voluntary (on grounds under petition reorganization which I shall for later) voting discuss Chapter of the Act. U.S.C.A. the claim. X claims, seq. adjourn creditors’ All seven in Refusal number and et the $6,000, aggregating only has been were voted in meeting error when there is Levy. $93,000 behalf of one the As Meat such serious abuse discretion as un only Company’s any claim the justly prejudice one of creditor. See importance Mills, D.C.Mass., for Grat, prejudice voted that claim No vote, Levy lawfully could not was elected. here shown. Referee held that it had But the been law- Affirmed. result, fully deciding voted. As that no elected, appointed one was the Referee FRANK, Judge (dissenting). Circuit Mills, Company’s the Meat candidate. I begin by stating I it .think well disagree with the Referee. I think that my in facts somewhat more detail than the Levy was elected the to- seven claims done, bring in colleagues order to out $6,000, Company’s that Meat talling the aspects the case to I which dramatic Mills, voted for should not have majority opinion given in- think the been counted. because, attention. This do sufficient I аlthough Co., Brewery the amounts assets lia- In Loewers Gambrinus Re small, 318, involved are principles bilities we decided that where importance. considerable are of bankrupt here—the —as stockholders of a corporation were identical those of bankrupt, Corp., Grade A Foods had corporation, then, stockholders, any a creditor without two Schneider and but Ja- any cobs, owning They each one-half the of either kind of fraud or stock. unfair- attorney attorney appear for who filed an ance As had for 1. The appeared significantly Meat at ance for referred attorney parent company Meat to it as “the Co. appear subsidiary.” allowed He was to withdraw whatsoever, the claim of creditor nеss Analysis of H.R. tion of trustee.” corporation subordinated had be Cong. (1936) 157. 74th Sess. 2d ruling, of all other creditors. so designed propo by its amendment was Litton, Pepper cited and relied on in participation “from nents to exclude * * 84 L.Ed. 60 S.Ct. U.S. credi appointment a trustee Co,, Taylor Gas & Electric v. Standard a bank tors wihoare officers or directors of L.Ed. 59 S.Ct. appointment 306 U.S. rupt corporation, so that the veil,” corporate “pierced hold persons and we will the act of a trustee situation, ing creditors, in such a claim of are interested the estate bankrupt, corporation must be treated tie with the not because directly House exactly Hearings it were before personally.” as if held Judiciary on H.R. corporation.2 Committee on the stockholders 1st Cong. 75th Sess. 92. H.R. however, suggesting, am that the I Company’s have been claim should Hamilton4 Some remarks of Walton showing made subordinated technique ‘pierc- “A known as apply here: voting cite time of the trustee. I corporate uni- ing veil’ now all but Brewery Co. because there —with- case versally recognized courts. out the aid statute whatever—we always are our on the bench artists necessary disregard considered covering or count- adept locating the shadowy corporate insulation. Subordina- * * * There number of veils. Far less should indeed harsh. reports after case are the law case penetrate tissue-paper needed to insu- if two blandly assumed it is here, (1) lation as we have charters, they are separate concerns have only (2) a statu- in issue and we have *6 * * * two, larger fragments a tory provision Amendment —the * * * says imperium. a Such decision a, 11 U.S.C.A. sub. a sub. Section effect, your papers proper order ‘get prevent controlling to —which aims go will the returns.’ we behind bankrupt from for a trustee. only announce, with ‘this deals is court to True, statutory language the literal of that shadows; to with we no facilities deal have provision no than a claim a covers more ” that, in such Hamilton thinks substance.’ bankrupt company’s stockholders, directors instance, a “dare return court should to interpretation of the or officers. sim- affair to the down-to-earth a human corporation to include twin car- a statute possesses everyday it in the world.” plicity e., disqual- рut purpose, i. to patent ries my recipe for the instant case. That connection ify persons “too close with that proper My only point to it colleagues’ make is to answer counted in the selec- should their votes is. language to “the of the statute.” That opinions case, is, wife, 2. In one that it of the a man who like above Caesar’s got no suspicion. need there was said that have to Ton to have that ** * a different result to consider whether have an honest administration. required if would be if to We find we want have proper administration, got company bo affected. But have to would opinion, Judge bankruptcy any Learned influ- the other that divorce the question. Hand, mention tend minimize ef- did not even ence would to ficiency felt, administration, and we following excerpt from the is taken deliberation, provision after due Hunt, testimony of the of Mr. member Hearings before House essential.” Bankruptcy Conference National Judiciary on the on H.R. 6439 Committee sponsored amendment: “The the 44-a Cong. H.R. 75th 1st 94- Sess. seriously considered at matter has meetings of confer- various all Hamilton, Composition trying On are to arrive at is What we ence. Corporate 'Veil, person an address before the of a receiver and the selection Lawyers Society (1946) 18-19, absolutely impartial, who Brandéis trustee expressed it, have, as the courts does not entangling words, any alliances; in other they impossible know would “plain language” it is what my colleagues employ the it, they have said if it had. All they not adhere have about Yet I sure rule. am down words on to done is certain if called to write to such mere literalness kind. (said apply generally to situations of following statute construe prevent apply may some To literally been enacted these either Dean Pound5 to have meaning, states) plainly years ago general : “Be it what was in one of our every any undisposed leave of what there enacted that it shall unlawful any suppose provide reason for. person persons discharge loaded meant to Thus, in, enough judge along or is not for the firearm or firearms * * dictionary. except cannot public highway (He) in this use road or state * * * suppose purpose killing noxious or has for the been said animal, pur purpose.” should dangеrous or an officer in leave unexecuted its own Hand, duty.” Judge the inade And criticizing The idea of while suit quacy “plain sole language” judge of the school which would decide key entirely meaning legal came our according correct into his own notions of Aristotle,6 justice, system from the Roman via decried the school of sheer literal lawyers,7 ism which “dictionary thence Plowden. Said Plow- he dubbed (in 1574); may Pland, “The Judge opinions den law he resembled school.” for this kernel, court, expressed nut, which has a shell and has similar views. you Deposit and as be no nut Corp. Tremaine, will better Federal Ins. you shell, Cir., only you if make of the so use he remarked: law, you receive benefit guide interpreta will “There is no surer rely letter, only upon the and as the fruit tion of purpose than statute profit shell, sufficiently disclosed; nut lies in the so nor surer profit the fruit and of the law consists in mark of over solicitude for the than letter is, the sense more than the letter.”8 It to wince carrying purpose out that be * * then, day little late for our courts cause the formally words do not * * * always quite to stick legislation. said, letter of is, match it.” It Particularly strange is it for this court to Markham, in Cabell so, great do for our Judge, former Chief “one of the surest indexes of a mature Hand, bench, Learned developed and off jurisprudence not to make a *7 often disclosed serious unwisdom of fortress out dictionary; to re but 1933,9 such Writing a method. in he said member that always statutes have some judge really that “what a purpose is to does take object to accоmplish, whose * * * the language try before him and sympathetic imaginative discovery and is 11 to find out (legislators) what the guide meaning.” the surest to their In done, have case before him had been Co., Cir., Borella 2 63, v. Borden F.2d 145 * *10 Strictly before speaking, 64-65, them. Judge Hand wrote: can “We best Pound, 5. A Hundred Years of Judge repeating American 10. Here Hand was Law, Century Progress said, Law, in A of Aristotle Aristotle, and Plowden had See p. 1835-1935, I, 8. 1173b; Vol. Ethics, Nicomachean 2 Plowden, 450, Eng. (1574), 465-467 75 Ethics, 1137b; passage 6. Nicomachean Rep., 695-696. also N. L. R. B. v. quoted Victoria, is in Usatorre v. The Union, Cir., National Maritime 2 F. 175 Cir., 434, 2 172 F.2d note 12. 686, 7; 2d 4 690 notes and Usatorre v. Kiss, Equity See, g., Law, e. in and 7. Cir., Victoria, 434, The 2 172 F.2d 439- volume, Legal of Method Science 12-16; 441, v. and notes Commissioner (1917) 146. Cir., 243, Estate, 2 Beck’s 245 Johnson, Cir., 2 Eyston note Slifka v. 161 Studd, 8. Plowden’s comments on v. 467, 450, Plowden, Eng.Rep. 467, 470. 2 75 465— 688, 695-699. affirming, Supremе Court, in 11. In 404, Judge Cabell, Hand, Markham Ear 326 U.S. Learned How is a Free 9. Rendering Decision, Series, 90 S.Ct. L.Ed. said: I in Lectures, a Law (National policy Advisory of as the letter “The as well No. guide (1933). in law a to decision.” on Radio Education is Council
73á
person read
degree
precision
a
always,
a
which
here,
by re
meaning
reach the
understand;
and,
but
purpose,
good
faith can
underlying
to
course
precision
necessary
is
trying
project
degree
to
a
to
attain
guide,
with that as a
cannot
person reading
faith
specific
how we think
a
bad
occasion
persons,
purpose,
a
would misunderstand.”
actuated
it,
presented
dealt
if it had been
have
with
only
well
that not
remember
say
is a
time. To
that
them at the
legislators,
lawyers,
judges
men
but
truism,
process
a
but
hazardous
is indeed
activity14
prob-
every
kind
meet that
it,
escape
literal
we cannot
once we abandon
“interpre-
lem
communication
call
interpretation
far more unre
method
—a
tation.”
alone seem
mathematicians
consistently
recognized
liable.” He has
complete
problem with
able
solve the
colloquial
a
have
“the
words of
statute
satisfaction, although
mathematicians
not the fixed
artificial content of scien
suggest
more than
satisfaction
penumbra,
symbols;
tific
have a
illusion;16
certainly to--
sometimes an
connotation,
they express
fringe,
dim
can-
lawyers
language
that their
day
know
will,
an
which it
is our
attitude
into
approximate
that of mathema-
begin to
duty
penetrate
must en
which we
may join
Indeed,
times, lawyers
ticians.
* * *
it,
force
can
when we
ascertain
rejoice
resources of
“the
expression.”
regardless
imprecision
ambiguity.”
leadership,
Judge Hand’s
12
Under
may be,
deny
one can
However
spurned
canon of inter
court has
“legislative
intention”
is sometimes
pretation
English
which an
formu
court
fiction;18 then the
good
effort
enough
attain to
deal
lated thus:
“It
is not
22; Frank,
Cir.,
Page
(1942)
Ickelheimer,
12.
Read
Commissioner
(1949)
660, 662,
dis-
278.
A.L.R.
Courts On Trial
132 F.2d
senting opinion;
Lehigh
Valley Coal
cf.
Gray
pointed
Gray, Na-
18. So
out.
Yensavage,
Co. v.
F.
(2d ed.)
Sec.
ture and Sources
Law
552-553.
370.
(1891) 1 Q.B.
re Castrom
exaggeratedly,
Interestingly,
if a bit
Radin,
quoting,
“Ascertainment
Congress
Literary
has much
teach
in this situa-
criticism
the intention of
say:
lawyers
lawyers
impossible,”
much
went
—as
“interpre-
literary
by this
Jackson
critics —about
“If
statement
Justice
tеach
thinking
of ‘intention’ in accordance
tation.”
fields,
given
problem
meaning usually
it,
in still other
with the
As to
(1950)
Open
Popper,
Society
group
idea or
ideas
minds
cf.
beings,
213-218,
human
I
minds
determinate
enthusiastically agree
fully
him.
*8
lawyers’
course,
the
communication
Of
however, generally
term,
The
of
use
the
problem
area
is not
restricted
the
implies that bloodless and sinewless fic-
also,
g., in
is found
e.
of statutes.
‘leg-
interpreters,
imaginary
the
tion
contracts,
wills,
and all
connection with
Qesetegeber,
islator,’
legislateur,
le
der
notably
writings,
in
reference
other
legiferens,
homo
own cousin to
finding
in
of facts
trial courts.
to the
spectre
man.’ What
‘economic
(1949) 186ff,
Frank,
Trial
Courts on
See
think,
thought or
did
intended or
309; Fuller,
Law
Contract
Basic
imagine,
intend,
imagined
did not
or
666-670; Wurzel,
(1947)
Methods
Ju
сreated,
utterly irrelevant,
since he is
Thinking (1904) in The Science
ridical
purpose
having
particular
394-400;
(1917)
Legal
Method
interpreter
imputed to
intention
Cir.,
Pennsylvania
R.
Ricketts
But
if we have in mind not
him.
760-764,
pages
757, at
164 A.L.
beings,
figment, but
actual
human
opinion.
concurring
R.
them,
who voted in
hundred
several
Fair Labor
Act
Standards
favor
Psychology
Hadamard,
Inven-
Representatives
the House
(1945)
Field
Mathematical
in the
Senate,
Justice Jackson
overwhelm-
6-8.
Chs.
saying
ingly right
that we cannot
possibly
(1945),
determine what
their intentions
Burke,
of Motives
A Grammar
were, beyond
p. 56; Richards,
the actual words
used
How
Introduction
attorney’s
irksome,
liter-
interpret may
held that
deceased
become
court
bankrupt
may
inviting exit
claim for
rendered the
alism
seem an
services
corporation
pur-
Obviously,
might
as
pеrplexity.
legislative
be voted.
But when the
alive,
pose
discoverable,
attorney
longer
although ambiguously
was no
variety
expressed
danger
influencing
of rea- no
the election
(for one of a
of his
sons),19 then,
Holmes20 and Learned
a manner favorable to the
as
warned,
stay company.
was the
priggishly to
That
non-existence
Hand have
precise
controlling
of the
words
within the enclosure
factor is shown
page
opinion,
that a court
in its
131 F.2d at
is a
Holmes counselled
said
mistake.
ought
may
with 376:
court
not be school-marmish
“While it
be true that we could
legislators,
say
exceptions
“This
to them:
other
statute on
.add
* * *
equitable
you boys
will
grounds
teach
to be more careful
think there
present
suppose
the next time.” The
case seems
are
grounds
no such
We
here.
interpretation
bankrupt’s
me to
denying
be one where literal
reason for
spells just
judicial uppishness.
attorney
right
to vote
a trustee
he,
creditors,
would be that
with other
interprets
My colleagues’ decision
might,
fraud, appoint
by collusion or
amendment
with such literalness
trustee who
through
would favor his voters
consequence
astonishing
it has the
of ascrib-
malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance, or
actually
Congress
en-
aim
partiality,
expense
at the
of the other in-
persons who,
franchising
before the amend-
persons.
terested
might
Whatever reason
ment,
For,
permitted
were not
to vote.
advanced,
it is clear that it could not
previous
1938,many
courts had forbidden
apply here
attorney
beсause the
is dead.
claims of even
fide
credi-
bona
disinterested
Being dead,
way
there would be no
by proxies
tors to be voted
who were offi-
which he might
anyone.
take advantage of
bankrupt.21
attorneys
cers
believe,
We
therefore,
that if the claim
my
colleagues hold
thanks to the
properly allowed,
were
it was entitled to its
“plain
statute,
language” of the amended
vote.”
Schneider,
(President)
officer
voted,
bankrupt, properly
proxy,
decision,
As
bolster
my
to their
col-
creditor,
Company.
claim of
leagues
possibly
intimate that might
shown,
at the
voting,
time
Perhaps my colleagues had this curious
Levy,
creditors,
the nominee of the
consequence
when,
justify
in mind
their
disqualified:
interpretation, they
Referring
something
literal
cited West Hills
Cir.,
Doneсa,
record,
Memorial Park
131 F.2d not
my
say
colleagues
point.
which I think is not in
There the
begun
trustee “now asserts” that he has
Radin,
Study
A
repeated
in the statute.”
Case
paraphrased,
and others have
Statutory
Interpretation:
legislature
Western
cannot
foresee and de
Lenroot,
Rev.
particulars
Co. v.
35 Calif.Law
Union
scribe
all
covered
Wurzel,
(1945)
purpose (policy)
loc.
222-223.
Cf.
cit.
of the statute.
supra.
355—356.
citations note
ambiguous
expression
S.,
20. Johnson v. U.
always
(a)
L.R.A.,N.S.,
duo to
means
carelessness:
International
Judges,
Stevedoring
lecture
Haverty,
of whom like to
*9
v.
Co.
272 U.S.
possibly
legislatures,
50, 52,
cannot
themselves
47 S.Ct.
737
Co.,
Coventry
if
re
Evans Furniture
affidavit;
be believed
D.C.N.
is entitled to
he
D.N.Y.,
stubs, memos,
self-contradictory.
If