Document: 351 U.S. 445 76 S.Ct. 904 100 L.Ed. 1311 The COLD METAL PROCESS COMPANY and Union National Bank of Youngstown, Ohio, Trustee, Petitioners,v.UNITED ENGINEERING & FOUNDRY COMPANY. No. 76. Argued Feb. 28, 1956. Decided June 11, Mr. William H. Webb, for petitioner. Jo. Baily Brown, Pittsburg, Pa., respondent. Justice BURTON delivered the opinion Court. 1 This is a multiple claims action in which District Court entered judgment disposing but one claim. Pursuant to Rule 54(b) Federal Rules Civil Procedure, as amended 1946, 28 U.S.C.A.,1 that court expressly determined there was no just reason delay directed entry judgment. Thereupon, an appeal taken Appeals, issue before us whether latter has jurisdiction entertain under U.S.C. § 1291, U.S.C.A. 1291,2 although unadjudicated counterclaim awaits disposition comparable decided Sears, Roebuck Co. v. Mackey, 427, 895, except here claim arising part out same transactions occurrences adjudicated By applying reasoning used Sears case, we reach like conclusion uphold Appeals. 2 While arises does claim, it filed long after principal proceeding begun, nature ancillary bears separate case number. Upon request both parties, removed from trial calendar, without prejudice either party, leaving subject reinstatement at any time by order upon its own initiative, or party reasonable notice. A brief review entire proceedings disclosure matter throws light on relationship between counterclaim. 3 In 1927, petitioner, Cold Metal Process Company, Ohio corporation, United Engineering Foundry Pennsylvania into contract purpose securing patent name relating certain type steel rolling mill granting exclusive license make, use sell mills such patent. To end, parties contributed their respective applications agreed should be granted when issued. also try, negotiation, determine amount payment license. If could not agree point, submitted arbitration manner specified contract.3 4 1930, issued refused treat 1927 conferring United. maintained licensee until due had been paid. United, other hand, treated enforceable fee later. 5 After litigation now material,4 Metal, 1934, instituted present proceeding, Equity 2991, against States Western Pennsylvania. seked (1) injunction restraining prosecuting suits, pending elsewhere, founded United's rights patent, (2) determination paid contract. declined preliminary injunction, D.C., 9 F.Supp. 994, appealed denial and, 1935, obtained reversal directing issued, Cir., 79 F.2d 666. 6 1939, line with foregoing results, supplemental complaint asking 'cancelled, revoked annulled' enjoined further operations However, 1938, Court, trial, held valid enforceable, accounting master. 83 914. 7 but, Appeals reversed 1935 decision largely sustained position. It ordered infringement suits dissolved created favor stated master determine, 'understanding' shown record, 107 27. 8 1941, asked leave file answer counterclaim, complaining Metal's recent acts were inconsistent 1939 1942, denied motion ground carry only existing mandate 43 375. suggested, however, sought another action, assert, master, breaches 1943, modified 1938 decree make conform Appeals' 1939. appointed past operations, payments made licensed future. 1949, refiled 'Ancillary Cross Complaint' Action 7744. sought, inter alia, enjoin prosecution using licenses require account funds collected within field license, (3) set off those royalty might 1950, dismissed cross 2991. 92 596. 1951, was, reality, therefore, 190 217. reviewed previous course pointed this are entirely dependent court, 27, upheld validity 10 Into situation, 1954, came master's report listed mills, fixed compensation payable contract, found existed 1930 1947 customers duly patented mills. exempt royalty, failed respect perform all obligations owed substantial sum it. 11 1955, approved respects $387,650, interest 6% date filing report. Both appealed. once moved dismiss certification required 54(b). With permission then add certification.5 12 Again because lacked per curiam said 'We think circumstances very kind thing written provide for. We see violation discretion district judge entering it.' 221 115. 13 Accordingly, October 3, argued appeals merits rendered merits, certiorari petition questioning appeal. 350 819, 48. designed. appealability so may stage proceedings. 14 Prior promulgation Procedure well have true would not, stage, over Under single judicial unit theory finality recognized, That even if did arise transaction occurrence claim.6 54(b), original form, actions. rule, likely qualified 'permissive,'7 rather than 'compulsory,'8 us.9 follows fact test rule from, independent of, claims. See Reeves Beardall, 316 283, 62 1085, 86 1478. 15 forth led uncertainty, example.10 overcomes difficulty terms, need decide compulsory permissive. contrast treats counterclaims, permissive, provides 'When more relief presented cross-claim, third-party (district) direct final less * *.' (Emphasis supplied.) Counterclaims cross-claims thus equated others. Bendix Aviation Corp. Glass, 195 267, 38 A.L.R.2d 356. Therefore, factors can consider exercise discretion. certifies claims, satisfied abuse discretion, appealable. 16 result dispositive case. finally adjudicates relief, certifying absence reasons delay. appealable prior mean amended, invalid. applies relief. meets needs problems modern administration adjusting fit actions, while retaining right exercised determining impair statutory concept embraced rulemaking power 17 Affirmed. 18 For FRANKFURTER, whom HARLAN joins, concurring 34 dissenting 76., ante, p. 439. text, 433 435, 898, 899. 431, 897. agreement appears 29, note 1. 120; 68 564, denied, 291 675, 54 530, 78 1064, 2506. amendment included express 'no issues raised Report Special Master . ..' done hearing during 'I think, far concerned, (of special master), wanderin area where couldn't our way tried decided.' filed, objections counsel each side jointly informed they desired dispose trying (counterclaim) 7744, undesirable try action. thereupon, continued, sine die, pretrial conference scheduled reinstatement. status 'counterclaim.' Ayres Carver, How. 591, 179; Bowker States, 186 135, 22 802, 46 1090; General Electric Marvel Rare Metals Co., 287 430, 53 202, 77 408; Toomey Toomey, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 77, 149 19. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., 13(b), defines 'permissive' follows: 'A pleading state opposing party's claim.' 13(a), shall serving pleader adjudication presence third cannot acquire jurisdiction, commenced action.' Audi Vision, Inc., RCA Mfg. 136 621, 147 A.L.R. 574; supra. 433—435,

Category: 8