Document: 331 U.S. 543 67 S.Ct. 1428 91 L.Ed. 1662 GOSPEL ARMYv.CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al. No. 103. Argued Feb. 6, 7, 1947. Decided June 9, Appeal from the Supreme Court of State California. Mr. Robert H. Wallis, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant. John L. Bland, appellees. Justice RUTLEDGE delivered opinion Court. 1 This is a companion case to Rescue Army v. Municipal City 549, 1409, decided today. Because we dismiss appeal in this cause jurisdictional reasons, facts may be shortly stated. 2 The Gospel an incorporated religious organization. trial court found that it 'engaged exclusively promulgation, by literature and word mouth, its beliefs, through auxiliaries procuring donations form money articles value prosecution furtherance activities.' More particularly, activities consist conducting mission, distributing books without charge, giving aid poor. It collects salvage which either sells secondhand goods store,1 distributes directly poor, or sends mill.2 3 instituted suit enjoin enforcement certain ordinances Angeles on ground they violate liberty under Constitutions California United States.3 4 After Superior County broadly concluded: 5 'That permanent injunction should issue herein restraining enjoining Defendants each them any all persons, associations, departments whom said employed acting associations who claiming by, Defendants, further interference threatened acts, would way prevent free exercise Plaintiff.' 6 From decision was taken District Second Appellate Division, Division Two, then transferred That held, three judges dissenting, Court's action granting erroneous. 27 Cal.2d 232, 163 P.2d 704. Some, if not all, were sustained as constitutional. On determination jurisdiction postponed merits. 66 1352. 7 difficulties arise judgment. ended with statement, 'The judgment reversed.' Its same form: 'It Ordered, Adjudged Decreed Judgment above entitled cause, hereby In unqualified reversal, 'that say, direction court,' effective remand 'for new places parties position had never been tried.' Erlin National Union Fire Ins. Co., 547, 61 756, 757; Stearns Aguirre, Cal. 443, 448; Central Sav. Bank Oakland Lake, 201 438, 257 P. 521; Richfield Oil Corporation Board Equalization, 329 69, 72, 156; Cal.Jur. § 590. 8 Under 237 Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. 344, U.S.C.A. only 'final judgments' state courts appealed And frequently has appellate final reviewable purpose must end litigation fully determining rights parties, so nothing remains done 'except ministerial act entering * directed.' Department Banking, Nebraska, Pink, 317 264, 267, 63 233, 235, 87 254. Thus, where effect court's grant trial, will final. 9 Increasingly become less formal matter judgments. no longer rule face determinative whether final.4 Today 'the test local rules practice denominated but rather record shows order fact adjudicated adjudication subject review court. *' at page 268, 10 term supra, despite reversed directions, determined entire upon independent investigation law purposes 237. first place, stipulated and, far appeared, stipulation have available controlling second trial. one refund tax those grounds presented prior claim could urged suit. stated: 'Since passed issues control litigation, take there more decided.' pages 73, 74, 159. 11 case, however, stipulated, nor are special procedural restrictions. law, amend complaint present facts. 'Such reversal remands tried. Of course, retrial becomes presented. But applied evidence settled beyond controversy appeal, (to) fact, does case." 757. 12 We cannot assume hold question constitutional what might Indeed, experience demonstrates particularly cases turn factual presentation. 13 Accordingly, fall within specific holding for, although modern examine both well other circumstances pertinent, Banking supra; mean ordinary disregard law. example, Nothing contrary. made error judgment, clerical otherwise. If thought so, moved amended. course still open them. 14 dismissed. received sales used meet cost operating store, including compensation paid manager solicit contributions. Whatever goes into corporate treasury. Ninety per cent sent mill driers tru cks collect salvage. ten unnecessary consider precisely involved See Court, 1409. For incorporating old 'face judgment' rule, see, e.g., Bruce Tobin, 245 18, 38 62 123; Schlosser Hemphill, 198 U.. 173, 25 654, 49 1000; Haseltine Bank, 183 130, 22 50, 46 117. There strong dissent abandonment rule. separate McReynolds, J., Clark Williard, 292 112, 129, 54 615, 622, 78 1160. general discussion, cf. Boskey, Finality Judgments Federal Code (1943) 43 Col.L.Rev. 1002, 1003—1008; Robertson Kirkham, Jurisdiction States (1936) 54—57.

Category: 8