Document: 345 U.S. 247 73 S.Ct. 656 97 L.Ed. 986 WESTERN PAC. R. CORP. et al.v.WESTERN CO. al. METZGER v. Nos. 150 and 160. Argued Dec. 15, 16, 1952. Decided April 6, 1953. [Syllabus from pages 247-248 intentionally omitted] Mr. Herman Phleger, San Francisco, Cal., for Western Pacific Corp. another. Julius Levy, New York City, Meredith H. Metzger others. Allan P. Matthew, Pac. Co. Chief Justice VINSON delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The petitioners in these causes—a corporation some its stockholders—seek an accounting respondents—certain other corporations which, prior to a reorganization 1943, were subsidiaries petitioning corporation. It is petitioners' theory that respondents had unjustly enriched themselves by wrongfully appropriating 'tax loss' incurred petitioner Railroad Corporation applying it sole benefit respondent Company. 2 factual background upon which complaint was founded as complicated unique. For present purposes, we may pass over it. Suffice say cause action on unjust enrichment; jurisdiction federal courts invoked grounds diverse citizenship parties. 3 District Court denied relief, Appeals affirmed two-to-one vote. Petitioners then applied rehearing before en banc. With one dissent, denied; court order struck request be filed second application protesting two judges, who out banc, error because such authorized statute required attention full court. 4 Appeals, declined entertain this application. Judge Denman dissented. We granted certiorari; among things, deemed important resolve banc questions precipitated litigation. 344 809, 28. 5 issues stem 28 U.S.C. § 46(c), U.S.C.A. 46(c). reads: 6 'Cases controversies shall heard determined or division not more than three unless hearing ordered majority circuit judges are active service. A consist all circuit.' 7 claim Code vests defeated party right ask banc; whole must act petition; thus erred refusing case. 8 Obviously, calls close analysis What particular right, if any, does give litigant Appeals? To what extent he entitled put merits his each member pressing demand entire court? 9 In our view, 46(c) addressed litigants. Appeals. grant power. power hearings goes no further. neither forbids nor requires petition left free devise own administrative machinery provide means whereby hearing. 10 statute, enacted 1948, but legislative ratification Textile Mills Securities Commissioner, 314 326, 62 272, 86 249—a decision went further sustain When cast historical perspective, becomes readily apparent. 11 As early 1938, Judicial Conference Senior Circuit Judges1 recommended amended make clear 'the able when their unusual circumstances advisable.'2 recommendation renewed 1939 again 1940.3 Thereafter, 1941, conflict developed between circuits4 sit under old Code, identical bills introduced both House (H.R. 3390) Senate (S. 1053) amend Conference. proposed amendment took form proviso 117: 12 '* * Provided, That, where there available cases, advisable.' H.R. 3390, S. 1053, 77th Cong., 1st Sess. 13 legislation came up Judiciary Committee, Senator Danaher expressly raised problem, 'On whose motion would assemble banc?' He told counsel might 'suggestion,' convening at initiative court,' desirable 'to encourage initiation suggestion counsel.' McFarland said looking provision got impression 'they (the court) ones do acting.' Kilgore agreed. concluded 'impractical decide.'5 14 This bit history significant. Congress attempting frame empower any 'provide' problem immediately raised: how convened banc—would legislation, framed, litigants compel every judge proponents those studied it, worked answer study problem: determination exercised rest with itself—litigants should suggest case appropriate consideration court, they given take formal suggestion. 15 Subsequent later proposals—drafted substantially similar language—discloses change purpose. 117 passed House, never acted Senate.6 have died Court's intervened. 16 inter-circuit brought 117, resolved Mills, purely dispute reached proceedings initiated. Lang's Estate Cir., F.2d 867, Ninth held way could convene itself But Third Circuit, Mills,7 contrary conclusion: 17 cannot agree Denman's conclusion *. conclude has provide, done Rule 4(1), sessions consisting service.' 62, 70—71. (Emphasis supplied.) 18 affirming did court's exercise 'power banc'. There nothing indicate recognized parties cases judges. 19 state law 1944, movement revise stages. At time, Maris, Chairman Committee Revision submitted memorandum Laws. Pointing urged new code 'that except rule special directs judges.'8 proposal genesis 46(c).9 motivated dual purpose: express recognition doctrine while same time securing tradition three-judge against intrusion. 20 first draft differ material respect form,10 through succeeding drafts stages development without attracting specific comment. unassisted seek divine legislators' understanding Reviser's Notes, great weight.11 These comments reviewed revision relied 'explain source changes made course codification revision.'12 21 Revisers tell us purpose twofold: 'authorize establishment divisions court', 'provide assignment banc.'13 Referring latter purpose, notes quote extensively Mills.14 language describes certain housekeeping functions discharged unless, motion, convenes body acts body—such making, appointing clerks fixing times held. Clearly Notes assimilated discharge functions, precisely description saw fit use describing nature conferred 22 Furthermore, apparent intended anything codify concern preserving 'tradition' inroads.15 An interpretation authorizes litigants, nonsitting case, certainly departure courts—a most controversial plainly anticipated Mills. Yet Congress' codification, alteration, rules pertaining administration courts. 'great care been existing meet unanimous approval.'16 Similarly, Maris 'embodies number practical improvements judicial wholly noncontroversial resulted suggestions originating day various provisions gives them knowledge matters.'17 23 reading well leave doubts. reposes 'a judges', says more. Perhaps, study, inclined fall back general experience jurisprudence, determine is, implication, whether will dispels idea makes quite draftsmen more; establish procedure 24 harmonious 46.18 Section, speaks Courts Appeals: itself, body, arrange calendar distribute work membership; designate places sit. Ordinarily, added Congress, three. further; doubt vote, hear rehear cases. 25 juxtaposition last enactment others negates Act. Litigants standing partake, decisions arrangement divisions. Just binding assigned division, so construed entertain, motions 26 reading—one petitioners—would obviously require practice thrust unwarranted extra burdens difficult believe automatic, appeal composed hold 'horizontal' implicit 46. And, correct petitions must, matter law, bench, argument apply equally requesting initial treats 'hearings' 'rehearings' equality. But, again, submit, judge—a preliminary appeal—asking bench examine formally question 27 Accordingly, deals, rights, manner administered itself. choose abide entrusting selected On hand, adhere delegates responsibility division. Because power, more, vested wide latitude discretion decide just exercised.19 even grants only plus exercise, mark end review phase confirmed emphasized necessary useful power—indeed too ever permit ignore possibilities appropriate.20 If achieve fundamental requirements observed 'general supervise justice courts,'21 lies define insure observance. 29 essential, course, appear understand practice— whatever be—whereby promulgating governing recognize scope powers Consistent may, shown, adopt rehearings delegate recognizing membership mindful, commits always retains withdraw delegated value efficient enable achieving better procedure, deem advisable. 30 also essential division—depending resides, court—that steps sparingly, curtail indiscriminately. Counsel often equipped point implications calling decide.22 If, s denies privilege reaching ear question, still reason deny access few initially, perhaps decisively, Counsel's need Court; treated motion; enough simply opportunity call warrant banc.23 And sepak deprived initiate sua sponte. court; litigants' function therefore limited; but, certainly, wisely utilized, chance aid effective implementation statute. 31 Finally, issue considered separate apart satisfied correctness decision. Yet, reflection, after fully appeal, come significance deserves 32 foregoing rejection affirmance below disposing applications decided adequately convinces appropriate. 33 After announced decision, asked per curiam issued (197 1012): 34 'The appellants intervenors denied. Insofar stricken being authority See Kronberg Hale, 181 767.' 35 striking ambiguous. accord legal order, ruled suggest, Enough already show error. 36 Indeed, counsel's 'without law', powerless question. Two panel district judges.24 One dissented denial rehearing, utilized seems subsequently six members court.25 followed banc.26 37 Following asking reinstate petition. matter, set forth advise bar determination. Accordingly proceeded explain why. Construing said: 197 F.2d, page 1015: 38 recalled, 'court judges' Obviously controversy final subject prescribed 1254. designated officially play, part deliberations stage. That subdivision (a) 46 providing 'Circuit directs.' regard mandate intrude themselves, compelled losing intrude, directed 39 'A wording, necessarily solely disposition From forward petitions, disposed ordinary rehearing.' 40 suggests refused completely consider request. Instead, that, 'From forward', alone, entrusted responsibility. govern henceforth, contrary, apparently law' 41 thought administering 'necessarily' limited Perhaps opinion27 inference believed result permitted alternative practice. very least, doubt. Certainly Denman, vigorously, ruling statutory compulsion. did, rests erroneous 42 have, then, record litigation, turned deaf bench—quite conceivably lacked act. Likewise countenance request, saying lay alone—although unaware Possibly acting misconception breadth powers, promulgated misconceived now wish administer 43 ambiguity; difficulty resolved. ambiguity, 'from forward,' ordering case; division—whose henceforth—gave independent 44 vacate denying file remand proceedings. power; adopted, clearly explained, become thoroughly familiar it; further, prevent suggesting who, established initiating remand, light basic administration, follow, exercising chooses entrusts 45 Order vacated remanded directions. FRANKFURTER. 47 249, construing ambiguous appeals inherent Thereafter placed basis. adjudicated panel, party's rehearing. I claim. abstract proposition, sitting expresses litigant's right. agree, finally, rules, traditionally recognized, concerning discretionary rules. 48 No can feel strongly system independence, within area authority, safeguarded. 'Certainly possible attribute (them) prestige invites reliance appellate relatively few, called adjudicate constitutional national importance.' Ex parte Peru, 318 578, 590, 602, 63 793, 800, 806, 87 1014 (dissenting opinion). follows read subordination direction. 49 not, believe, either expected praying causes so. 1053 predecessor failed passage—are equivocal point. Remarks, McFarland's, 'would acting' graze problem. 'acting' sense mandatory whenever made. Ther hand testimony Groner District, indicated move Hearings Subcommittee S.1050, S.1051, S.1052, S.1053, S.1054 H.R.138, Sess., pp. 17, 40. view experienced wise carries weight. event, bill became law. shed 50 less reasonable effectuate purposes legislation. Before proceed modes into ends achieved word about relevant. 51 Rehearings healthy step process; surely ought normal procedure. paged Federal Reporter nearly fifty years appears growth tendency appeals. quantitative facts, gains circuits almost course. abuse energy. results needless delay. arouses false hopes wastes money. justified, rare instances, bespeak serious defects appeals, assumption rejected. bear mind approaching section instances rehearings, though rarely, nine panels. 52 courts, conflicts dominant concern. Moreover, constructive resolving avoid them. Hence, insofar possible, determinations likely reach different resort extraordinary scale—either amount involved stupendous intricate invoke pooled wisdom circuit. Any devised sensibly calculated avoiding intra-circuit adopted agreeably to, by, would, calculated. repeat, so, advantages disadvantages rule, think, do, impose undue burden unwittingly encouraging lax inclination pro forma automatically 53 served ways permitting sponte evident, wasteful resources excessive exists, process having circulate opinions, emitted, This, appears, Groner. Judiciary, supra, p. 39. accomplishes achievement since acquaints 'with coming down, conflict, something kind, *.' Ibid. (testimony Groner, C.J.). sure, briefs, vote far concerned. Presumably, however, states thereby sufficiently alerts minds stake. taps considerations lead, judge, for. 54 be—there doubtless are—other sponte, accomplish needs accomplished see effect apprise panels Court, bring attention, suggestion—the nomenclature immaterial—as raising problems directed. delegation dispose behalf banc—if alone implemented—would constitute adoption permissible proper instance, allow definitively judgment treat empty, purposeless words. 55 Since whole, considering merits, established, consistent reasons grant, concur vacating remanding cause. 56 JACKSON, dissenting. 57 prolong aged litigation reconsider individual least stems vague supervisory 58 felt incumbent me help settle sanction negative. intracircuit exceptional situations actually trusted initiative.1 successful good expenditure dilatory public interest interpose another enlarged conventional Delay, cost, uncertainty, toll unsuccessful, litigant, increased additional hybrid intermediate fact leaves precise confers unsettled lead litgant raise. 59 predict, guess today's ignored regretted. met append statement 'and denied.' innocuous effect. Unfortunately, significant follow. open complexities generate procedural vex impoverish 'suggestion.' 'circumstances banc.' yet chapters future manuals exploring differences deciding words 'petition denied' instead stricken.' increase ponderousness minor rather major evil, counterbalanced, most, negligible good. 60 am persuaded discouraged initiated convinced best diversity practices grown courts,2 presumably response conditions prevailing desires. receive policy ours enforce questioning desirability. conceded this. ourselves making policy, especially vindicate bounds. vouchsafed 'necessary power,' citation holding 249. remembered answered here dispute, feebleness reed clear. think humility leaving solutions suggested experience. 61 presents interesting panels; fact, unique precedent progeny. swollen reverse point, controversy. alleges citizenship, presence requisite controversy, 'this civil equity citizens states.' grounded California forum However, foreign corporations, committed states, bankruptcy tax rulings scrambled situation involved. recognizes based enrichment, common count, Minor Baldridge, 123 Cal. 187, 190, 783, 785, waiver tort suit assumpsit, Bank America National Trust & Savings Ass'n Hill, Cal.2d 495, 71 P.2d 258. Whether none rejects enrichment fiduciary duty corporate managements, although surprising exact anywhere situation. Thus, analyze facts principles obtain analogy. affiliated considerable, complete, control, minority interests. realized huge loss; enjoyed large net income. together, saving amounting seventeen million dollars profitable company. authorized, required, merged consolidated return. Each duty, join returns. 64 seem anomalous glance sustained loss asset. offset valuable. market restricted, detracts position utilize 65 contribute tax-saving plan. Either helpless. know moral obligation away advantage owner himself. 66 remotely illegal improper management plaintiff demanded compensation privileges. probable intention consolidation positions salvage loser, profit loss. 67 bargaining position. stakes high. Neither win indispensable without. treasure offered Government whoever keys unlock key, holder key worth for? DP management, probably intent, position, turning face warranted fair arm's-length yielded. hardly stigmatized capitalizing mere nuisance value. blackmailing transaction offers forego doing injury bought off. merely seeks share transferred. 68 findings accordance sketchily stated enrichment. Now United States. Report Attorney General (1938) 23. treatment difficulties gave rise doubts 328—330, 274—275, (1939) 16. Judges (1940) 7. 867; Commissioner Corp., 1940, discussed text infra. discussion found Cong.Rec. 8328. H.R.Rep.No. 1246, Much footnote Douglas' Supra, note 4. Memorandum August 18, Laws 21, 1944. 9, Preliminary Draft (of 3498, 79th Sess.), Print (1945), 11. contained following: 'Such subsection (c) recommendations Albert B. third dated 1944.' read: '(c) next draft, 7124, 2d Collett, 1949, 337 55, 68—71, 69 944, 951—952, 93 1207. S.Rep.No.1559, 80th 2. Note (28 U.S.C., Cong.Serv. '48, 1707—1708) 'Based (Title 28, 1940 ed., 212) Act Mar. 3, 1911, c. 231, Stat. 1131. 'Subsections (a)—(c) authorize Supreme States notwithstanding 212 Title lawfully greater five appeal. (See Internal Revenue, 249.) upholding case: 'There numerous record, jurisdiction', Under embrace: prescribing writs style seal 219); regulations appointment clerk 221) approval removal deputy 222); 'times' 223). sections performed 'court'.' 'This preserves provides provided continues ordered. assignments, permits rotation maximum preparation opinions. 'Whether simultaneously determine.' U.S., 332, 276. paragraph quoted 13, supra. No. Representatives 2055, 19. 46, 'Assignment judges; divisions; hearings; quorum '(a) directs. '(b) divisions, Such Cases '(d) thereof, (c), quorum.' Having play convenient service' assemble, formally, informal used; necessity 334—336, 277 278. utility importance reflecting behind H.R.Rep.No.1246, Sess.; 39—40. Annual 16; device ex rel. Robinson Johnston, 1942, 316 649, 1301, 1732, Civil Aeronautics Board American Air Transport Inc., 1952, 4, appeared 'conflict views' arisen 'among Circuit', 'for proceedings, including 650, 1301. 'were unable case,' said, dismissing certificate: 'Perhaps deadlock certificate case.' 5, 3. City Lines, 334 573, 589, 1169, 1178, 92 1584. Cf. 1732; Transport, 'suggest' entitled, Suggestions advance They deems them, taken constituted 292(a), 292(a). mean imply dissenting wrote, 1013: 'I Judges. Circuit. practice, accords admirable. Inasmuch fairer Judges.' Compare Crutchfield States, 142 170, 178 3; Independence Lead Mines Kingsbury, 175 983, 992; hale, 1950, 767. Harv.L.Rev. 1449 (1951). Thus wrote: harmony scheme, consistently retained intramural reheard uncontrolled altogether hearings. takes disqualification composition outside province parties.' Bradley Mining Boice, 198 790, Pope I, (9 994), find intelligently bank proposing here. was. Upon reserve until necessary.' 792, several occasions. Southern Guthrie, 186 926; Hopper 181; Gas Electric Exchange Commission, 139 298; Evaporated Milk Association Roche, 130 843. Stan.L.Rev. 337, follows, information received respective courts: Columbia considers Sixth Tenth Second

Category: 8