Document: 337 U.S. 78 69 S.Ct. 955 93 L.Ed. 1226 UNITED STATESv.NATIONAL CITY LINES, Inc., et al. No. 269 Misc. Argued on Motion for Leave to File Feb. 8, 1949. Decided May 31, Mr. Charles Weston, Washington, D.C., petitioner. C. Frank Reavis, New York City, respondents. Chief Justice VINSON delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The issue here is whether 1948 revision Judicial Code, Title 28, United States 28 U.S.C.A. § seq., extends doctrine forum non conveniens antitrust suits. Government's complaint in this civil suit alleged that respondent corporations have conspired obtain control local transportation companies at least 44 cities 16 states different sections country, order restrain and monopolize interstate commerce busses petroleum other supplies incident thereto, violation §§ 2 Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. 1, 2, 2. This second time an court below, District Court Southern California, attempting effectuate a transfer case from Los Angeles Chicago, has been before When respondents' motion was first granted, dismissed action, 1947, 7 F.R.D. 456, inasmuch as federal courts then lacked statutory power cases. We reversed, holding not applicable v. National City Lines, 1948, 334 573, 68 1169, 92 1584. After September effective date present Code,1 respondents filed new under conveniens, citing 1404(a), which reads follows: 'For convenience parties witnesses, interest justice, district may any action or division where it might brought.' Again below granted motion. It ordered transferred. D.C. 80 F.Supp. 734. Government thereupon submitted leave file petition writ certiorari. assigned hearing 335 897, 296. 3 In taking position authority enter its transfer, advanced many arguments we already considered today—and rejected—in Ex parte Collett, 55, 944, Kilpatrick Texas & Pacific R. Co., 45, 953, 959, held actions Federal Employers' Liability 45 51 were now subject conveniens. contends, example, Congress intended 1404(a) apply only venue provisions formerly contained rather than 'any action' (the requirements cases are defined 22, 22; Act cases, 56, 56); legislative history establishes very clearly had no desire substantially t change law—indeed, urges us disregard reviser's notes printed House Reports.2 cannot accept reasons discussed our previous decisions today. so obviously authoritative perceiving meaning Code itself, discussing section refers them brief case. And occasion look notes. Stainback Mo Hock Ke Lok Po, 1949, 336 368, 376, n. 12, 609, 610. 4 true although decision, make reference laws decision litigation. therefore disposition conclusive. disagree. cite 'As example need such provision.' Obviously, complete catalogue. use implies purpose restrict phrase precisely illustration selected. Quite contrary, particular noted demonstrates changes law, expand transferability practice seems more radical practice: Baltimore Ohio Co. Kepner, 1941, 314 44, 62 6, 86 cited note, decided over six years initial case, 1584, ruling by inapplicable 5 Although explanation needed lack Congressional former simple chronology be consulted. appeared Report 308, 80th Congress, 1st Sess., published April, 1947. initially passed July, 1947.3 With amendments, Senate June 1948,4 16, 1948.5 Our Lines handed down 7, 1948. Clearly, failure expressly consider proves nothing. 6 Nor there anything required unique discussion, face unmistakable language 'Congress' mandate regarding exercise jurisdiction binding courts,' page 588—589, 1177, field must rest 'the effect used * *', supra, 597, 1182, Nothing intimates could fail respect whatever modification law enact. Moreover, th known addressed protests heard Congress. admitted oral argument; possibly denied. litigation previously us, City's brief, pp. 25—26 called attention imminent probability would enacted April 26, Not until final Judiciary Subcommittee. Furthermore, proposals extensively publicized. See 944. Department informed: each Attorney received copy draft;6 spokesman testified hearing;7 General asked Committee.8 plain inference either took with forthcoming alteration rule suits, protest made disregarded. Neither alternative offer slightest justification overriding unequivocal words indeed meant what said. 8 For these reasons, can find distinction between others hold here. 9 Denied. 10 DOUGLAS, whom BLACK concurs, dissenting. 11 There difficulties me however decided. But I concluded fairer result reached if ambiguities doubts, fully canvassed disclosed Court's opinions resolved reading making codified revised 28. That gives full legislating. authorizes, respects group another lieu outright dismissal obtained. construction saves Clayton mutilation. am reluctant conclude drastic course mere code. So basic two statutes involved but 4, 5, 5; Jones 46 688, 688; Suits Admiralty 782, 782; Merchant Marine 1936, 1128d, 1128d; Securities 77a, 77v, 77v; Exchange 78a, 78aa, 78aa; Public Utility Holding Company 79, 79y, 79y; Investment 80a, 80a—43, 80a—43; perhaps too. Pub.L.No.773, Cong., 2d 38, 25, note. apparently one reported dealing instant issue. accord below. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours D.C.1949, 83 233. See, generally, Note, Venue Antitrust Cases; Applicability Discretionary Transfer Provision, 58 Yale L.J. 482 (1949). note appears H.R.Rep.No.308, Sess. A 132 (1947) H.R.Rep.No.2646, 79th 127 (1946). 'Subsection (a) drafted accordance permitting convenient forum, even though proper. As provision, see prosecuted Employer's York, accident occurred employee resided Ohio. subsection requires determine necessary further, justice do so.' Cong.Rec. 8392 (1947). 94 7930 (1948). 8501 Hearings Committee H.R. 1600 2055, Statement Special Assistant Baynton, Ibid., 33—34. 'With bill codify title gathering memoranda all various divisions attorneys hope comprehensible report bill. material.' (Emphasis added.) Id., 34. Letter Tom Clark Congressman Michener, Chairman Judiciary, 17, letter declares objectives 'commendable desirable,' continues 'You will remember discussions members staff committee last month some suggestions minor corrections errors omissions draft being your committee. 'I advised conference agreed upon number incorporated exception (Tax Court) portion. *' 8385

Category: 8