Document: 348 U.S. 176 75 S.Ct. 249 99 L.Ed. 233 BALTIMORE CONTRACTORS, Inc., Petitioner,v.Jacob H. BODINGER. No. 31. Argued Nov. 9, 1954. Decided Jan. 10, 1955. Mr. Morris Rosenberg, Baltimore, Md., for petitioner. Charles Wilson, respondent. Justice REED delivered opinion of the Court. 1 The question in this case is whether an appeal may be taken to a court appeals from district order refusing stay action accounting pending arbitration. 2 This equitable was brought state profits joint venture construction under National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C.A. § 1701 et seq., and removed federal on basis diversity citizenship. Under agreement, Baltimore Contractors agreed pay respondent twenty-five percent net its contracts. provision which arbitration sought reads as follows: 3 'In event any dispute calculation Paragraph, Frenkil shall select either Wooden Benson or Haskins Sells accountant auditor named by them whose determination all such disputes final binding upon parties dispute.' 4 complaint alleged number improper practices part Contractors: use 'dummy' corporations inflate costs; charges machinery material purchases without credits value surpluses after completion job; receipt undisclosed rebates; excessive rental equipment; padded insurance costs, etc. 5 petitioner moved pursuant United States Arbitration 9 U.S.C. 3, authorizes when issue 'referable agreement writing arbitration'. District Court refused ground that between did not constitute arbitrate. apparently construed quoted limited mathematical disputes. Petitioner appealed Appeals Second Circuit. 216 F.2d 192. On respondent's motion dismissed appeal, citing City Morgantown v. Royal Ins. Co., 337 254, 69 1067, 93 1347. Certiorari following question: 6 'Whether interlocutory denying Section Act should regarded denial injunction lies.' In view conflict decision below Hudson Lumber Co. Plywood Corp., Cir., 181 929, we granted petition, 347 942, 74 640.1 7 Congress has long expressed policy against piecemeal appeals. reasons were stated 8 'From very foundation our judicial system object acts congress relation writs error, (with single exception act 1875 cases removal, repealed 1887) have been save expense delays repeated same suit, whole every matter controversy it decided appeal.' McLish Roff, 141 661, 665—666, 118, 120, 35 893.2 22 Judiciary 1789, Stat. 73, 84, provided civil actions could circuit courts only decrees judgments.3 10 That requirement finality remained law ever since, now appears 1291 Judicial Code.4 11 trial court's interpretation contract clause called 1291. It surely Court's Shanferoke Coal & Supply Corp. Westchester Service 293 449, 451, 55 313, 314, 79 583.5 here presented involves 28 1292(1), makes finality, permitting 'interlocutory orders * granting, continuing, modifying, dissolving injunctions, dissolve modify except where direct review had Supreme Court'. Appealability turns refusal 'injunction' 1292. first introduced 1891 established intermediate appellate courts. 26 826. allowed equity 'granting continuing' but those only. Additions class appealable made time until enactment 1292 present form.6 No discussion underlying modifying rule legislative history, authough changes seem plainly spring developing need permit litigants effectually challenge serious, perhaps irreparable consequence.7 When pressure rises point influences Congress, remedies are enacted. position weigh competing interests dockets courts, consider practicability savings expense, give proper weight effect litigants. countervailing considerations arise, interested organizations become active efforts jurisdiction.8 Court, however, authorized approve declare modification. responsibility see no unauthorized extension reduction jurisdiction, indirect, occurs system. Delaware 583. Any ad hoc decisions disorganize practice encouraging attempts secure oppose with consequent waste money. choices fall domain. They enlargement allowable list orders; abandonment fragmentary appeals; general allowance discretion judge findings need, consent approval court. 13 A series developed rationale determining appealability predecessors. routine injunctive raised few questions. See George Victor Talking Machine 377, 229, 439. There statute clear. stays proceedings, distinction jurisdiction became sharp. Enelow New York Life 379, 310, 440, arising at proceedings equity, common life met answer alleging fraud policy's procurement prayer cancellation try first. granted, approved reasoning: 14 'The power another appertains distinctively enforcement principles, grant within meaning 129 (§ 1292). And, aspect, difference two cases, suit stayed, both court, 'proceedings national powers sitting equity.' Per Van Devanter, J., Griesa Mutual (of York), 165 F. 48, 50, 51.' page 382, 311.9 15 After adoption one form Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., 2, reiterated ruling like case. Ettelson Metropolitan 317 188, 63 163, 164, 87 176. We said disposition 'is effective *. looks substantial made.' 16 mere steps framework litigation before differs prohibiting applied company reformation contract. insured counterclaimed, seeking enforce written, demanded jury trial; strike demand; set jury. appeal. affirmed, holding apply; since proceeding counter claim policy, hear how case, therefore nature injunction. To argument importance justified treating injunction, answered: 17 'Many equally important, determine outcome litigation, they reason converted into injunctions.' U.S., 258, 1069. 18 controls here.10 Whether right wrong require simply pending, actual fictional. word understood through Ettleson principles common-law action. distinguished Shanfroke supra, note 5, way. defense refused. Code, 129. said: 19 'For granting based cross-bill interposed 274b 129.' 452, 314. 20 reliance analogy enjoin other elements fiction day incongruity taking type springs persistence outmoded procedural differentiations. Some simplification would follow assumption both. years, conclude better precedents limit orders, leaving make amendments find proper. 21 difficult generalize advantageous efficient administration justice. compromise worked out But does authorize simplify litigation. step controlling Affirmed. 23 BURTON concurs judgment 24 BLACK, whom DOUGLAS concurs, dissenting. 25 I think because (1) 'final' 1291, (2) As admits, collateral so severable unrelated central issues considered even though important left undecided. Given sense For certainly rather than tribunal logically practically factual legal crucial merits controversy. And held orders. effect. Indeed, seems admit entered presiding particular agree jurisdictional 'incongruity differentiations' 'elements fiction' modern day. do obeisance these incongruous fictions required congressional enactments. relies purpose avoid money incident 'piecemeal' suit. But, pointed out, §§ 1292, way open many judgments finally deciding separately adjudicated rigid contrary itself guarantee useless expenses. trials, unnecessary, take longer cost more do. Take example. must go back time-consuming expensive Government. lose undoubtedly arbitration, refuses consider, wrong. If found wrong, vacated again sent merits—this will wholly futile litigant who successful gained anything it, unless perchance he stands profit delay. some difficulty, least, laying wasteful procedure door Congress. declaratory certain provisions incidental relief. Appeal staying resort Catlin States, 324 233—234, 65 631, 633, 634, 89 911; Bailey, Pet. 238, 273, 113. enlarged English there although law. Holdsworth's History Law 214; Crick, Final Judgment Basis Appeal, 41 Yale L.J. 539, 540—548, 551. rigorously enforced. Rutherford Fisher, Dall. 21, 724; Young Grundy, Cranch 51, 149. Fragmentary denounced. Canter American 307, 318, 688; 1291: Territory Alaska, Canal Zone, Guam, Virgin Islands, Court.' statutory limitation decisions, i.e., decrees, Ex parte Tiffany, 252 32, 36, 40 239, 240, 64 443, determinations characteristics finality. Stack Boyle, 342 1, 6, 72 4, 96 3; Roberts 339 844, 845, 70 954, 955, 94 1326; Swift Packers Compania Colombiana Del Caribe, 684, 688, 861, 864, 1206; Cohen Beneficial Industrial Loan 541, 546, 1221, 1225, 1528; Cogen 278 221, 49 73 275. Cf. Bandini Petroleum Superior State California Los Angeles County, 284 8, 14—15, 52 103, 105—106, 76 136; Radio Station WOW Johnson, 326 124, 1475, 1478, 2092; Montgomery Bldg. Const. Trades Council Ledbetter Erection 344 178, 196, 97 204. Underwood, Federal Practice From Collateral Orders, 36 Va.L.Rev. 731. concept completely disposing arises 'so severed Cobbledick 309 323, 328, 60 540, 542, 84 783. 583, recover damages breach containing clause. denied thought applicable Code 1911, predecessor 1292(1). followed 440. Wilko Swan, 201 439, reversed pertinent here, 346 427, 182, damages. 3. cited. 1895, amended 666. further amendment 1900 include receiverships. 31 660. repealing 1895 restored 1911. 1087, 1134. Frankfurter Landis, Business 124—127. 1925, 43 937, changes: First, embraced injunctions expanded receiverships appealable. Second, dropped words 'in equity' phrase 'where, hearing court' employed initial 1891. change intended omission. Schoenamsgruber Hamburg Line, 294 454, 457, 475, 477, 989, footnote 1927, patent accounting, 44 1261. Interlocutory bankruptcy covered Bankruptcy 47, 47. Compare 54(b), U.S.C.A., Dickinson Conversion 338 507, 322, 299. Statutory enacted Great Britain. Judicature Reports 1925(2), Geo. V, c. 49, 31; Halsbury's Laws England (2d ed.) 209. Hart Wechsler, Courts System, Note Rule 54(b) Review 1344; Proposals Appeals, 58 1186. Report Proceedings Annual Meeting Conference Sept. 24—25, 1953, p. 27, Committee Enlargement Scope proposed transmitted 100 Cong.Rec. 1079 1168. 476, admiralty course trial. Moore's Commentary 492.

Category: 8