« PreviousContinue »
Metropolitan Fire Ins. Co., 359 Ill. 584 (1935); Minnesota, State Bank of Gibbon v. Walter, 167 Minn. 37, 38, 208 N. W. 423 (1926), Waldron v. Page, 191 Minn. 302, 253 N. W. 894 (1934); New Jersey, N. J. Comp. Stat. "? Cum. Sup. 1911–1924) tit. 163, $ 303, as interpreted in Bussy v. Hatch, 95 N. J. L. 56, 111 A. 546 (1920); New York York Mortgage Corporation v. Clotar Const. Corp., 254 N. Y. 28, 133 (1930); North Dakota, Comp. Laws Ann. (1913) $ 7846, as amended by N. D. Laws 1933, ch. 208, Milnor Holdi ig Co. v. Holt, 63 N. D. 362, 370, 248 N. W.315 (1933); Ok] homa, Wichita Mining and Improvement Co. v. Hale, 20)kla. 159, 167 (1908); South Dakota, Randall v. Burk Tonship, 4 S. D. 337, 57 N. W. 4 (1893); Texas, Custard v. F wwers, 14 S. W. (2d) 109 (1929); Utah, Rev. Stat. Ann. (1933) $ 104-41–5; Vermont, Roberge v. Troy, 105 Vt. 134 (1933); Washington, 2 Rev. Stat. Ann. (Remington, 1932) $$ 309-316; McCullough v. Puget Sound Realty Associates, 76 Wash. 700, 136 Pac. 1146 (1913), but see Cornwall y. Anderson, 85 Wash. 369, 148 Pac. 1 (1915); West Virginia, Kinsey v. Carr, 60 W. Va. 449, 55 S. E. 1004 (1906), semble; Wisconsin, Stat. (1935) § 251.09; Campbell v. Sutliff, 19? Wis. 370, 214 N. W. 374 (1927), Gessler v. Erwin Co., 18. Wis. 315, 193 N. W. 363 (1924).
For examples of an assimilation of the review of findings of fact in cases tried without a jury to the review at law as made in several states, see Clark and Stone, Review of Findings of Fact, 4 U. of. Chi. L. Rev. 190, 215 (1937). Rule 53. Masters.
Note to Subdivision (a). This is a modification of Equity Rule 68 (Appointment and Compensation of Masters).
Note to Subdivision (6). This is substantially the first sentence of Equity Rule 59 (Reference to Master-Exceptional, Not Usual) extended to actions formerly legal. See Ex parte Peterson, 253 U. S. 300, 40 S. Ct. 543, 64 L. Ed. 919 (1920).
Note to Subdivision (c). This is Equity Rules 62 (Powers of Master) and 65 (Claimants Before Master Examinable by Him) with slight modifications. Compare Equity Rules 49 (Evidence Taken Before Examiners, Etc.) and 51 (Evidence Taken Before Examiners, Etc.).
Note to Subdivision (d). (1) This is substantially a combination of the second sentence of Equity Rule 59 (Reference to Master-Exceptional, Not Usual) and Equity Rule 60 (Proceedings Before Master). Compare Equity Rule 53 (Notice of Txing Testimony Before Examiner, Etc.).
(2) This is substantially Equity Rule 52 (Attendance of Witnesses Before Commissioner, Master, or Examiner).
(3) This is substantially Equity Rule 63 (Form of Accounts Before:Master).
Note to Swedivision (e). This contains the substance of Equity Rules 61 (Master's Report-Documents Identified but not Set Forth), 61% (Master's Report-Presumption as to Correctnesz--Review), and 66 (Return of Master's Report-Exceptions—Hearing), with modifications as to the form and effect of the report and for inclusion of reports by auditors, referees, and examiners, and references in actions formerly legal. Compare Equity Rules 49 (Evidence Taken Before Examiners, Etc.) and 67 (Costs on Exceptions to Master's Report). See Camden v. Stuart, 144 U. S. 104 (1892); Ex parte Peterson, 253 U. S. 300, 40 S. Ct. 543, 64 L. Ed. 919 (1920).
Rule 54. Judgments; Costs.
Note to Subdivision (c) substantially from Equit,
Note to Subdivision judgment of equity and $ 270.54; Compare N.
Note to Subdivis contained in the (1913) § 7680; N.
iezon (a). The second sentence is derived om Equity Rule 71 (Form of Decree). bdivision (6). This provides for the separate
quity and code practice. See Wis. Stat. (1935) impare N. Y. C. P. A. (1937) § 476.
Subdivision (c). For the limitation on default ő in the first sentence, see 2 N. D. Comp. Laws Ann.
§ 7680; N. Y. C. P. A. (1937) § 479. Compare ich Rules Under the Judicature Act (The Annual Prac1937) O. 13, r. r. 3–12. The remainder is a usual code
vision. It makes clear that a judgment should give the Flief to which a party is entitled, regardless of whether it is legal or equitable or both. This necessarily includes the deficiency judgment in foreclosure cases formerly provided for by Equity Rule 10 (Decree for Deficiency in Foreclosures, Etc.).
Note to Subdivision (d). For the present rule in common law actions, see Ex parte Peterson, 253 U. S. 300, 40 S. Ct. 543, 64 L. Ed. 919 (1920); Payne, Costs in Common Law Actions in the Federal Courts (1935), 21 Va. L. Rev. 397.
The provisions as to costs in actions in forma pauperis contained in U. S. C., Title 28, $$ 832–836 are unaffected by this rule. Other sections of U. S. C., Title 28, which are unaffected by this rule are: $$ 815 (Costs; plaintiff not entitled to, when), 821 (Costs; infringement of patent; disclaimer), 825 (Costs; several actions), 829 (Costs; attorney liable for, when), and 830 (Costs; bill of; taxation).
The provisions of the following and similar statutes as to costs against the United States and its officers and agencies are specifically continued: U. S. C., Title 15, 88 77v (a), 78aa, 79y (Securities and
The Pe unalteritle 7: of the
costs of.es. C., Titider of the
U. S. C., Title 26, $$ 1569 (d) and 1645 (d) (Internal
revenue actions) U. S. C., Title 26, § 1670 (b) (2) (Reimbursement of
costs of recovery against revenue officers) U. S. C., Title 28, 8 817 (Internal revenue actions) U. S. C., Title 28, § 836 (United States-actions in
forma pauperis) U.S. C., Title 28, $ 842 (Actions against revenue officers) U. S. C., Title 28, § 870 (United States—in certain
cases) U. S. C., Title 28, § 906 (United States—foreclosure
actions) U.S. C., Title 47, $ 401 (Communications Commission) The provisions of the following and similar statutes as to costs are unaffected: U. S. C., Title 7, § 210 (f) (Actions for damages based
on ar. order of th. Secretary of Agriculture under
orders of Secretary of Agriculture under Perishable
in certain cases)
lation of antitrust laws) U. S. C., Title 15, $ 72 (Actions for violation of law
forbidding importation or sale of articles at less
than market value or wholesale prices) U. S. C., Title 15, § 77k (Actions by persons acquiring
securities registered with untrue statements under
Securities Act of 1933)
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
damages) U. S. C., Title 15, $ 99 (Infringement of trade-mark
injunctions) U. S. C., Title 15, 8 124 (Infringement of trade-mark
U.S. C., Title 19, § 274 (Certain actions under customs
law) U. S. C., Title 30, § 32 (Action to determine right
to possession of mineral lands in certain cases) U. S. C., Title 31, $$ 232 and 234 (Action for mak
ing false claims upon United States)
ing and proof) U. S. C., Title 35, $ 71 (Infringement of patent—when
specification too broad) U. S. C., Title 45, § 153p (Actions for non-compliance
with an order of National R. R. Adjustment
Board for payment of money)
to register vessel)
ance with an order of Maritime Commission for
payment of money)
lation of certain provisions of the Merchant Ma
rine Act, 1936) U. S. C., Title 47, $ 206 (Actions for certain violations
of Communications Act of 1934) U. S. C., Title 49, § 16 (2) (Action based on non-com
pliance with an order of I. C. C. for payment of
money) Rule 55. Default.
This represents the joining of the equity decree pro confesso (Equity Rules 12 (Issue of Subpoena–Time for Answer), 16 (Defendant to Answer—Default-Decree Pro Confesso), 17 (Decree Pro Confesso to be Followed by Final Decree-Setting Aside Default), 29(Defenses--How Presented), 31 (Reply-When Required—When Cause at Issue)) and the judgment by default now governed by U. S. C.,