Case Name: GENERAL TIME CORP. v. PADUA ALARM SYSTEMS, Inc. et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1952-09-17
Citations: 199 F.2d 351
Docket Number: No. 217, Docket 22281
Parties: GENERAL TIME CORP. v. PADUA ALARM SYSTEMS, Inc. et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 199
Pages: 351–366

Head Matter:
GENERAL TIME CORP. v. PADUA ALARM SYSTEMS, Inc. et al.
No. 217, Docket 22281.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued April 8, 1952.
Decided Sept. 17, 1952.
Chase and Biggs, Circuit Judges, concurred in part and dissented in part.
Herbert P. Kenway, Kenway, Jenney, Witter and Hildreth, Boston, Mass., Turner & Turner, John H. Schneider, Troy, N. Y., Koenig & Pope, St. Louis, Mo., for defend-ant-appellee,
Andros & Smith> Albanyj N_ Y„ Charles H. Andros, Harry A. Smith, Albany, N. Y„ , , , , . , , .. of counsel, for defendant-appellant. ’
Before CHASE, BIGGS, and CLARK, Qrcujt Judges

Opinion:
tjttp r*rn?TAi\/r PER CURIAM.
Though the court is divided in its views nonetheless there is sufficient agree-ment among its members to permit the dis-position of the case without remand. Judge CHASE and Judge CLARK, though of different opinions as to the merits of the contraversy> agree that the court has jurisdictlonto declde the case on its merits and that the Provisions of Rule 54(b), Fed.Rules Civ. Proc-> 28 U-S-C> relatlnS to judgment upon multiple claims are inapplicable. Judge BIGGS> while voting with Judge CLARK on ^ ments> 13 of the Vlew ^ the aourt *s without power to entertain the appeal be-cause he thinks that a claim within the purview of Rule 54(b)> verted by Padua, re-mams undisposed of. The positions of the Judges appear more fully m their respecBve °pini°ns
The net result is that a majority of the court (Judge CHASE and Judge CLARK) agree that the court possesses the power to adjudicate the controversy. A majority of the court (Judge BIGGS and Judge CLARK) agree that the decision on the merits should be in favor of Parissi. Ac-cordingly the judgment is reversed with the direction to the court below to enter judgment in favor of Parissi as indicated in Judge CLARK'S opinion,