U. S. C., Title 26, §§ 1569 (d) and 1645 (d) (Internal revenue actions) U. S. C., Title 26, § 1670 (b) (2) (Reimbursement of U. S. C., Title 28, § 817 (Internal revenue actions) U.S. C., Title 28, § 842 (Actions against revenue officers) 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 the Secretary of Agriculture under Stockyards Act) U. S. C., Title 7, § 499g (c) (Appeals from reparations orders of Secretary of Agriculture under Perishable Commodities Act) U. S. C., Title 8, § 45 (Action against district attorneys in certain cases) U. S. C., Title 15, § 15 (Actions for injuries due to violation 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) U. S. C., Title 15, § 78i (e) (Certain actions under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) U. S. C., Title 15, § 78r (Similar to 78i (e)) U. S. C., Title 15, § 96 (Infringement of trade-markdamages) U. S. C., Title 15, § 99 (Infringement of trade-markinjunctions) U. S. C., Title 15, § 124 (Infringement of trade-markdamages) U. S. C., Title 19, § 274 (Certain actions under customs U. S. C., Title 30, § 32 (Action to determine right U. S. C., Title 33, § 926 (Actions under Harbor Workers' U. S. C., Title 35, § 67 (Infringement of patent- U. S. C., Title 35, § 69 (Infringement of patent-pleading 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) U. S. C., Title 46, § 38 (Action for penalty for failure to register vessel) U. S. C., Title 46, § 829 (Action based on non-compli- U. S. C., Title 46, § 941 (Certain actions under Ship U. S. C., Title 46, § 1227 (Actions for damages for vio- 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-compliance 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., Title 28, § 724 (Conformity act). For dismissal of an action for failure to comply with these rules or any order of the court, see Rule 41 (b). Note to Subdivision (a). The provision for the entry of default comes from the Massachusetts practice, 2 Mass. Gen. Laws (Ter. Ed., 1932) ch. 231, § 57. For affidavit of default, see 2 Minn. Stat. (Mason, 1927) § 9256. Note to Subdivision (b). The provision in paragraph (1) for the entry of judgment by the clerk when plaintiff claims a sum certain is found in the N. Y. C. P. A. (1937) § 485, in Calif. Code Civ. Proc. (Deering, 1937) § 585 (1), and in Conn. Practice Book (1934) § 47. For provisions similar to paragraph (2), compare Calif. Code, supra, § 585 (2); N. Y. C. P. A. (1937) § 490; 2 Minn. Stat. (Mason, 1927) § 9256 (3); 2 Wash. Rev. Stat. Ann. (Remington, 1932) § 411 (2). U. S. C., Title 28, § 785 (Action to recover forfeiture in bond) and similar statutes are preserved by the last clause of paragraph (2). Note to Subdivision (e). This restates substantially the last clause of U. S. C., Title 28, § 763 (Action against the United States under the Tucker Act). As this rule governs in all actions against the United States, U. S. C., Title 28, § 45 (Practice and procedure in certain cases under the interstate commerce laws) and similar statutes are modified in so far as they contain anything inconsistent therewith. Rule 56. Summary Judgment. This rule is applicable to all actions, including those against the United States or an officer or agency thereof. Summary judgment procedure is a method for promptly disposing of actions in which there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. It has been extensively used in England for more than 50 years and has been adopted in a number of American states. New York, for example, has made great use of it. During the first nine years after its adoption there, the records of New York county alone show 5,600 applications for summary judgments. Report of the Commission on the Administration of Justice in New York State (1934), p. 383. See also Third Annual Report of the Judicial Council of the State of New York (1937), p. 30. In England it was first employed only in cases of liquidated claims, but there has been a steady enlargement of the scope of the remedy until it is now used in actions to recover land or chattels and in all other actions at law, for liquidated or unliquidated claims, except for a few designated torts and breach of promise of marriage. English Rules Under the Judicature Act (The Annual Practice, 1937) O. 3, r. 6; Orders 14, 14A, and 15; see also O. 32, r. 6, authorizing an application for judgment at any time upon admissions. In Michigan (3 Comp. Laws (1929) § 14260) and Illinois (Ill. Rev. Stat. (1937) ch. 110, §§ 181, 259.15, 259.16), it is not limited to liquidated demands. New York (N. Y. R. C. P. (1937) Rule 113; see also Rule 107) has brought so many classes of actions under the operation of the rule that the Commission on Administration of Justice in New York State (1934) recommend that all restrictions be removed and that the remedy be available "in any action" (p. 287). For the history and nature of the summary judgment procedure and citations of state statutes, see Clark and Samenow, The Summary Judgment (1929), 38 Yale L. J. 423. Note to Subdivision (d). See Rule 16 (Pre-Trial Procedure; Formulating Issues) and the Note thereto. Note to Subdivisions (e) and (f). These are similar to rules in Michigan. Mich. Court Rules Ann. (Searl, 1933) Rule 30. Rule 57. Declaratory Judgments. The fact that a declaratory judgment may be granted "whether or not further relief is or could be prayed" indicates that declaratory relief is alternative or cumulative and not exclusive or extraordinary. A declaratory judgment is appropriate when it will "terminate the controversy" giving rise to the proceeding. Inasmuch as it often involves only an issue of law on undisputed or relatively undisputed facts, it operates frequently as a summary proceeding, justifying docketing the case for early hearing as on a motion, as provided for in California (Code Civ. Proc. (Deering, 1937) § 1062a), Michigan (3 Comp. Laws (1929) § 13904), and Kentucky (Codes (Carroll, 1932) Civ. Pract. § 639a-3). The "controversy" must necessarily be "of a justiciable nature, thus excluding an advisory decree upon a hypothetical state of facts." Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U. S. 288, 325, 56 S. Ct. 466, 473, 80 L. Ed. 688, 699 (1936). The existence or non-existence of any right, duty, power, liability, privilege, disability, or immunity or of any fact upon which such legal relations depend, or of a status, may be declared. The petitioner must have a practical interest in the declaration sought and all parties having an interest therein or adversely affected must be made parties or be cited. A declaration may not be rendered if a special statutory proceeding has been provided for the adjudication of some special type of case, but general ordinary or extraordinary legal remedies, whether regulated by statute or not, are not deemed special statutory proceedings. When declaratory relief will not be effective in settling the controversy, the court may decline to grant it. But the fact that another remedy would be equally effective affords no ground for declining declaratory relief. The demand for relief shall state with precision the declaratory judgment desired, to which may be joined a demand for coercive relief, cumulatively or in the alternative; but when coercive relief only is sought but is deemed ungrantable or inappropriate, the court may sua sponte, if it serves a useful purpose, grant instead a declaration of rights. Hasselbring v. Koepke, 263 Mich. 466 (1933). Written instruments, including ordinances and statutes, may be construed before or after breach at the petition of a properly interested party, process being served on the private parties or public officials. interested. In other respects the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act affords a guide to the scope and function of the federal act. Compare Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227, 57 S. Ct. 461 (1937); Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry. v. Wallace, 288 U. S. 249 (1933); Gully, Tax Collector v. Interstate Natural Gas Co., 82 F. (2d) 145 (C. C. A. 5th, 1936); Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. Plummer, 13 F. Supp. 169 (S. D. Tex., 1935); Borchard, Declaratory Judgments (1934), passim. Rule 58. Entry of Judgment. See Wis. Stat. (1935) § 270.31 (judgment entered forthwith on verdict of jury unless otherwise ordered), § 270.65 (where trial is by the court, entered by direction of the court), |