« PreviousContinue »
codes; e. g., N. Y. C. P. A. (1937) $$ 220, 404, J. Ct. Act,
§ 600a (Per diem; mileage)
$ 603 (No officer of court to have witness fees) Note to Subdivision (d). The method provided in paragraph (1) for the authorization of the issuance of subpoenas has been employed in some districts. See Henning v. Boyle, 112 Fed. 397 (S. D. N. Y., 1901). The requirement of an order for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum is in accordance with U. S. C., Title 28, § 647 (Deposition under dedimus potestatem; subpoena duces tecum). The provisions of paragraph (2) are in accordance with common practice. See U. S. C., Title 28, $ 648 (Deposition under dedimus potestatem; witnesses, when required to attend); N. Y. C. P. A. (1937) § 300; 1 N. J. Rev. Stat. (1937) 2:27–174.
Note to Subdivision (e). The first paragraph continues the substance of U. S. C., Title 28, § 654 (Witnesses; subpoenas; may run into another district). Compare U. S. C., Title 11, § 69 (Referees in bankruptcy; contempts before) (production of books and writings) which is not affected by this rule. For examples of statutes which allow the court, upon proper application and cause shown, to authorize the clerk of the court to issue a subpoena for a witness who lives in another district and at a greater distance than 100 miles from the place of the hearing or trial, see: U. S. C., Title 15:
§ 23 (Suits by United States; subpoenas for wit
nesses) (under antitrust laws). U. S. C., Title 38:
§ 445 (Actions on claims; jurisdiction; parties; pro
cedure; limitation; witnesses; definitions) (Veterans' insurance contracts).
ays Before Co
regulated by appropriate statutes. Many resent procedure do not place any territorial limits on
limits on; in foreign countries.
in for poenas so issued, but provide that
etters rogatory to take anywhere within the United States
s court of foreign country; are the following:
poena) and 713 (Service of U. S. C., Title 7, $82 culture)
ompare Equity Rule 52 (AttendU. S. C., Title 1 en
e Commissioner, Master, or ExU.S. C., Tith Before
and Ex' s
al exceptions is often provided by statute.
(1937) ch. 110, $ 204; Neb. Comp. Stat. 9; N. M. Stat. Ann. (Courtright, 1929) N. D. Comp. Laws Ann. (1913) $ 7653; Ohio Throckmorton, 1936) § 11560; 1 S. D. Comp. $ 2542; Utah Rev. Stat. Ann. (1933) $$ 104–39–2, • Va. Rules of Court, Rule 22, 163 Va. V, XII Wis. Stat. (1935) $ 270.39. Compare N. Y. C. P. A. l'88 583, 445, and 446, all as amended by L. 1936, 6° Rule 51 deals with objections to the court's in
Bart ve Erceptions Un
Abolition of formal ere.
105-830; 2 N. D
ch. 915. Rul
structions to the jury.
xceptions, and useded in so for maings in ca:
U.S. C., Title 28, $$ 776 (Bill of exceptions; authentication; signing of by judge) and 875 (Review of findings in cases tried without a jury) are superseded in so far as they provide for formal exceptions, and a bill of exceptions. Rule 47. Jurors.
Note to Subdivision (a). This permits a practice found very useful by federal trial judges. For an example of a state practice in which the examination by the court is supplemented by further inquiry by counsel, see Rule 27 of the Code of Rules for the District Courts of Minnesota, 186 Minn. XXXIII (1932), 3 Minn. Stat. (Mason, supp. 1936) Appendix 4, p. 1062.
Note to Subdivision (6). The provision for an alternate juror is one often found in modern state codes. See N. C. Code (1935) $ 2330 (a); Ohio Gen. Code Ann. (Page, Supp. 1926–1935) $ 11419-47; Pa. Stat. Ann. (Purdon, supp. 1936) Title 17, § 1153; compare U.S. C., Title 28, § 417a (Alternate jurors in criminal trials); 1 N. J. Rev. Stat. (1937) 2:91A-1, 2:91A-2, 2:91A-3.
Provisions for qualifying, drawing, and challenging of jurors are found in U. S. C., Title 28:
§ 411 (Qualifications and exemptions)
§ 424 (Challenges) and D. C. Code (1930) Title 18, 88 341-360 (Juries and Jury Commission) and Title 6, § 366 (Peremptory challenges). Rule 48. Juries of Less Than Twelve-Majority Verdict.
For provisions in state codes, compare Utah Rev. Stat. Ann. (1933) $ 48-0-5 (In civil cases parties may agree in open court on lesser number of jurors); 2 Wash. Rev. Stat. Ann. (Remington, 1932) § 323 (Parties may consent to any number of jurors not less than three). Rule 49. Special Verdicts and Interrogatories.
The federal courts are not bound to follow state statutes authorizing or requiring the court to ask a jury to find a special verdict or to answer interrogatories. Victor American Fuel Co. v. Peccarich, 209 Fed. 568 (C. C. A. 8th, 1913) cert. den. 232 U. S. 727 (1914); Spokane and I. E. R. Co. v. Campbell, 217 Fed. 518 (C. C. A. 9th, 1914), aff’d. 241 U. S. 497 (1916); Simkins, Federal Practice (1934) § 186. The power of a territory to adopt by statute the practice under Subdivision (6) has been sustained. Walker v. New Mexico and Southern Pacific R. R., 165 U. S. 593 (1897); Southwestern Brewery and Ice Co. v. Schmidt, 226 U. S. 162 (1912).
Compare Wis. Stat. (1935) $$ 270.27, 270.28 and 270.30; Green, A New Development in Jury Trial (1927), 13 A. B. A. J. 715; Morgan, A Brief History of Special Verdicts and Special Interrogatories (1923), 32 Yale L. J. 575.
The provisions of U. S. C., Title 28, $ 400 (3) (Declaratory judgments authorized; procedure) permitting the submission of issues of fact to a jury are covered by this rule.
Rule 50. Motion for a Directed Verdict.
Note to Subdivision (a). The present federal rule is changed to the extent that the formality of an express reservation of rights against waiver is no longer necessary. See Sampliner v. Motion Picture Patents Co., 254 U. S. 233 (1920); Union Indemnity Co. v. United States, 74 F. (2d) 645 (C. C. A. 6th, 1935). The requirement that specific grounds for the motion for a directed verdict must be stated settles a conflict in the federal cases. See Simkins, Federal Practice (1934) § 189.
Note to Subdivision (6). For comparable state practice upheld under the conformity act, see Baltimore and Carolina Line v. Redman, 295 U. S. 654 (1935); compare Slocum v. New York Life Ins. Co., 228 U. S. 364 (1913).
See Northern Ry. Co. v. Page, 274 U. S. 65 (1927), following the Massachusetts practice of alternative verdicts, explained in Thorndike, Trial by Jury in United States Courts, 26 Harv. L. Rev. 732 (1913). See also Thayer, Judicial Administration, 63 U. of Pa. L. Rev. 585, 600-601, and note 32 (1915); Scott, Trial by Jury and the Reform of Civil Procedure, 31 Harv. L. Rev. 669, 685 (1918); Comment, 34 Mich. L. Rev. 93, 98 (1935). Rule 51. Instructions to Jury: Objection.
Supreme Court Rule 8 requires exceptions to the charge of the court to the jury which shall distinctly state the several matters of law in the charge to which exception is taken. Similar provisions appear in the rules of the various Circuit Courts of Appeals. Rule 52. Findings by the Court.
See Equity Rule 70%, as amended Nov. 25, 1935, (Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law) and U. S. C., Title 28, § 764 (Opinion, findings, and conclusions in action against United States) which are substantially continued in this rule. The provisions of U. S. C., Title 28, $$ 773 (Trial of issues of fact; by court) and 875 (Review in cases tried without a jury) are superseded in so far as they provide a different method of finding facts and a different method of appellate review. The rule stated in the third sentence of Subdivision (a) accords with the decisions on the scope of the review in modern federal equity practice. It is applicable to all classes of findings in cases tried without a jury whether the finding is of a fact concerning which there was conflict of testimony, or of a fact deduced or inferred from uncontradicted testimony. See Silver King Coalition Mines Co. v. Silver King Consolidated Mining Co., 204 Fed. 166 (C. C. A. 8th, 1913), cert. den. 229 U. S. 624 (1913); Warren v. Keep, 155 U. S. 265 (1894); Furrer v. Ferris, 145 U. S. 132 (1892); Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U. S. 136, 149 (1888); Kimberly v. Arms, 129 U. S. 512, 524 (1889). Compare Kaeser & Blair Inc. v. Merchants' Ass'n., 64 F. (2d) 575, 576 (C. C. A. 6th, 1933); Dunn v. Trefry, 260 Fed. 147, 148 (C. C. A. 1st, 1919).
In the following states findings of fact are required in all cases tried without a jury (waiver by the parties being permitted as indicated at the end of the listing): Arkansas, Civ. Code (Crawford, 1934) § 364; California, Code Civ. Proc. (Deering, 1937) $$ 632, 634; Colorado, 1 Stat. Ann. (1935) Code Civ. Proc. $$ 232, 291 (in actions before referees or for possession of and damages to land); Connecticut, Gen. Stats. $ $ 5660, 5664; Idaho, 1 Code Ann. (1932) $$ 7–302 through 7-305; Massachusetts (equity cases), 2 Gen. Laws (Ter. Ed., 1932) ch. 214, § 23; Minnesota, 2 Stat. (Mason, 1927) $ 9311; Nevada, 4 Comp. Laws (Hillyer, 1929) $ 8783– 8784; New Jersey, Sup. Ct. Rule 113, 2 N. J. Misc. 1197, 1239 (1924); New Mexico, Stat. Ann. (Courtright, 1929) $ 105–813; North Carolina, Code (1935) § 569; North Dakota, 2 Comp. Laws Ann. (1913) $ 7641; Oregon, 2 Code Ann. (1930) § 2-502; South Carolina, Code (Michie, 1932) $ 649; South Dakota, 1 Comp. Laws (1929) $$ 2525–2526; Utah, Rev. Stat. Ann. (1933) $ 104–26–2, 104–26–3; Vermont (where jury trial waived), Pub. Laws (1933) 8 2069; Washington, 2 Rev. Stat. Ann. (Remington, 1932) § 367; Wisconsin, Stat. (1935) § 270.33. The parties may waive this requirement for findings in California, Idaho, North Dakota, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and South Dakota.
In the following states the review of findings of fact in all non-jury cases, including jury waived cases, is assimilated to the equity review: Alabama, Code Ann. (Michie, 1928) $$ 9498, 8599; California, Code Civ. Proc. (Deering, 1937) § 956a; but see 20 Calif. Law Rev. 171 (1932); Colorado, Johnson v. Kountze, 21 Colo. 486, 43 Pac. 445 (1895), semble; Illinois, Baker v. Hinricks, 359 Ill. 138 (1934), Weininger v.
w Jersey, Sun Comp. Laws (Ulitin 2 Stat. (Mason.