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 (b). 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%1⁄2, 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of U. S. C., Title 28, §§ 773 (Trial of issues of fact; by court) and 875 (Review in cases tried without a jury) are superseded in so far as they provide a different method of finding facts and a different method of appellate review.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) § 87838784; 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) § 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.

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 Pussy 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 Holding Co. v. Holt, 63 N. D. 362, 370, 248 N. W. 315 (1933); Oklahoma, Wichita Mining and Improvement Co. v. Hale, 20 kla. 159, 167 (1908); South Dakota, Randall v. Burk To nship, 4 S. D. 337, 57 N. W. 4 (1893); Texas, Custard v. Fowers, 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 v. 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, 192 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 (b). 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 Taing 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 Sdivision (e). This contains the substance of Equity Rules 61 (Master's Report-Documents Identified but not Set Forth), 61%1⁄2 (Master's Report-Presumption as to Correctness-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).

VII. JUDGMENT

Rule 54. Judgments; Costs.

Note to Subdivision (a). The second sentence is derived substantially from Equity Rule 71 (Form of Decree).

Note to Subdivision (b). This provides for the separate judgment of equity and code practice. See Wis. Stat. (1935) § 270.54; Compare N. Y. C. P. A. (1937) § 476.

Note to Subdivision (c). For the limitation on default contained in the first sentence, see 2 N. D. Comp. Laws Ann. (1913) § 7680; N. Y. C. P. A. (1937) § 479. Compare English Rules Under the Judicature Act (The Annual Practice, 1937) O. 13, r. r. 3–12. The remainder is a usual code provision. It makes clear that a judgment should give the relief 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, §§ 77v (a), 78aa, 79y (Securities and
Exchange Commission)

U. S. C., Title 16, § 825p (Federal Power Commission)