Document: 351 U.S. 183 76 S.Ct. 758 100 L.Ed. 1075 Raymond G. CAHILL, Petitioner,v.The NEW YORK, HAVEN AND HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY. No. 436. Decided May 14, 1956. Messrs. William T. Griffin and Herbert Burstein, New York City, for movants. Mr. Randolph J. Seifert, opposition. PER CURIAM. 1 Respondent filed a motion to recall amend the judgment in above-entitled cause, 350 898, 180, purpose of remanding cause United States Court Appeals Second Circuit further proceedings. Prior filing this motion, after District denied an application stay execution, was satisfied; but petitioner informed that respondent intended pursue its remedies notwithstanding payment judgment. 2 The is granted. It ordered certified copy sent be recalled amended so as provide remand Boudoin v. Lykes Brothers S.S. Co., 348 336, 75 382, 99 354; Id., 811, 35; Rule 58(4), Supreme Rules, 28 U.S.C.A. 3 We deem our original order erroneous it interest fairness. Similar relief requested by petition rehearing, 943, 300. 58(4) bars consecutive out-of-time petitions rehearing. case, however, concerned asked almost identical relief. Yet, if had been considered out time. grant case shows does not prohibit motions correct kind error. 4 Compare mootness, Bakery Sales Drivers Local Union 33 Wagshal, 333 437, 442, 68 630, 632, 92 792; Dakota County Glidden, 113 222, 224, 5 428, 429, 981. problems may arise from demand repayment are before us. Motion 6 Justice BLACK, with whom CHIEF JUSTICE, DOUGLAS, CLARK join, dissenting. 7 In fairness we would Appeals. Cahill brought action under Federal Employers' Liability Act1 recover injuries sustained while working railroad brakeman. He hurt on busy highway which tracks running down center. While flagging traffic behind train stalled these struck truck started up suddenly. His complaint charged negligent sending him work such dangerous place without proper warning or instructions. jury found awarded damages. reverse Cahill's two grounds: (1) there insufficient evidence permit submission jury; (2) trial judge erroneously admitted prior accidents at scene injury offered show railroad's negligence failing warn dangers about those accidents. 8 reversed ground sufficient support verdict. Cir., 224 F.2d 637. Having taken expressly stated did find necessary pass alleged error admitting then us certiorari. On November 21, 1955, granted his Appeals' judgment, thereby reinstating Court. 180. Reed dissented. Frankfurter, Burton, Harlan expressed view certiorari should have denied; they participate decision merits.2 timely rehearing called attention fact objection never passed Appeals, urging reconsider modify extent question left undecided. This 9 present 'motion recall' presents precisely same contention raised once more court determine whether Thus turns former Or somewhat plainer language, second But declares that: 'Consecutive rehearings, time rule, will received.' What received simply because labeled recall.' 10 There can no possible doubt way raise sort here presented Our records filled proof this. latest example Trust Co. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 962, 429. asks again nothing new granting response Upon one occasion Bradley, speaking bench, said: 11 'It ought understood, least believed, true not, Court, being last resort, gives great consideration cases importance involving consequences like this, finality somewhere. custom making encouraged. prevails some matter ordinary practice mere it, do consider legitimate haste examining us, sometimes overlook something, willing pointed out, reexamine change seems me, taking functions * *'3 12 early recognition appropriateness points overlooked. Thus, assuming point overlooked originally, correctly first end Court's followed. 13 Bradley dealt problem successive Williams Conger, 131 390, 793, 201. litigant claimed clerical made opinion. A gound denied. concluded 'no modification required, for. *' page 391, 793. Later request made. strong lack patience 'persistent renewal especially upon reasons, overruled *.' Ibid. One tone opinion reached different result judgment.' Bros. S. 38, justify rehear formerly appealed fron favor, claiming: (a) amount damages inadequate; (b) term maintenance determined extended increased. undercut both errors holding entitled all. reversed. 354. ask could adjudicate motion. comparable here. Had Boudoin's he later I suppose review reversal substance pleadings their labels govern action. what effect unless admit refusing give rule against literal meaning. arguments allowing where rigid manifest injustice. Cf. Hormel Helvering, 312 552, 556—559, 61 719, 721—722, 85 1037. case. 14 held every instance has failed decide point, must Such most undesirable bring interminable delays unjust results. Delk St. Louis & S.F.R. 220 580, 31 617, 55 590, suit Safety Appliance Act, reversing question, went Harlan, 'As entire record power court, well direct disposition might done 588, 621.4 More recently O'Leary Brown-Pacific-Maxon, 340 504, 71 470, 95 483, decided undecided 'In instance, slim relevant standard difficult apply; think litigation better terminate now. Accordingly ourselves examined assess sufficiency evidence.' 508, 472. At unsubstantial below points. 15 Certainly asserted justifies back relates admissibility concerning based large part failure instructions when before. knowledge danger location highly proving negligent. than knew repeated injury? No fair system exclude testimony issues involved As Field, said Columbia Arms, 107 519, 525, 840, 845, 27 618: 'The frequency particular seem good character—at least, effect.'5 16 told already paid For all know directly Cahill. general voluntary amounts accord satisfaction. Thorp Bonnifield, 177 15, 18—19, 20 533, 534—535, 44 652. Payment duress course matter. duress. statement respondent's brief intention whatever And also states declined agree execution. certainly setting aside judgment.6 Even facts were sufficient, tried takes drastic trying make plaintiff pay money 981.7 If summary reference only few days ago, why year ago?8 Yet investigating problems, summarily grants remands 17 deny 35 Stat. 65 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., seq. See Carter Atlanta A.B. Ry. 338 430, 438—439, 70 226, 231, 94 236; Schulz Pennsylvania R. 523, 527, 608, 610, 611; cited. Charles Evans Hughes, (1928), 71—72. Frankfurter Landis, Business October Term, 1931, 46 Harv.L.Rev. 237: 'Of course, conceivably obstinate adherence surely, barring very exceptional circumstances, implies serious adjudicating process, mastering either pertinent legal considerations issues. Harriman Northern Securities 197 244, 287, 25 493, 501, 49 739; Lutcher Moore Lumber Knight, 217 257, 267—268, 30 505, 509, 510, 54 757; Lamar States, 241 103, 110—111, 36 535, 537, 60 912; Camp Gress, 250 308, 318, 39 478, 482, 63 997; Langnes Green, 282 531, 536—539, 243, 245—246, 520; Story Parchment Paterson Paper 555, 567—568, 248, 252, 544. interesting discussion cited Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed. 1940), §§ 458. see Notes: A.L.R. 380, 81 685, 128 595, 'Where party pays illegal full render illegal, immediate urgent necessity therefor, release person property detention, prevent seizure property, deemed cannot recovered back. files written protest involuntary.' Pac. Railroad Commissioners, 98 541, 543—544, 196. Little Bowers, 134 547, 554—558, 620, 621—623, 1016. 'But courts compelled, are, receive dehors affecting proceeding them appeal.' 225, 430. Wood-Paper Heft, Wall. 333, 19 379. expiration Term apparently longer relevant. 452, 452.

Category: 0