Document: 329 U.S. 482 67 S.Ct. 428 91 L.Ed. 436 ANDERSONv.YUNGKAU et al. No. 87. Argued Dec. 19, 20, 1946. Decided Jan. 13, 1947. Mr. Robert S. Marx, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioner. LeWright Browning, Ashland, Ky., respondents. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion Court. 1 These are seven cases in which petitioner sued to recover stock assessments from shareholders Banco Kentucky Co. They were started 1936 Eastern District and stayed by agreement while principal case upon these depended, Anderson v. Abbott, 321 349, 64 531, 88 793, 151 A.L.R. 1146, wended its way through courts. In latter we sustained liability assessment. That was 1944. During time Abbott being litigated, involved present litigation died respondents became executors their estates. Through no lack diligence,1 failed learn facts until more than two years later. Upon learning them he promptly moved revive actions against representatives decedents. The Court, following Brady, D.C., F.R.D. 589, denied motions revivor granted dismiss. Circuit Court Appeals affirmed a divided vote. Yungkau, 6 Cir., 153 F.2d 685. is here on petition writ certiorari because presented an important problem construction Federal Rules Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. section 723c.2 2 involves reconciliation Rule 25(a) 6(b). So far as material here, provides: 3 'If party dies claim not thereby extinguished, court within after death may order substitution proper parties. If so made, action shall be dismissed deceased party.' And relevant part 6(b) reads: 4 'When rules or notice given thereunder act required allowed o done at specified time, cause shown may, any discretion * (2) motion permit expiration period where failure result excusable neglect; but it enlarge taking under 59, except stated subdivision (c) thereof, appeal provided law.' 5 It said that since made party, is, meaning 6(b), 'allowed' 'within time' showing 'excusable neglect' year period. argument reinforced reliance provision grants exceptions power enlargement time. Since included exceptions, argued rule enlarged pointed out establish receiver neglect',3 thus giving allow We agree, however, with Appeals. based 42 Stat. 352, § 778, limited party.4 even could unless executor administrator served 'Before final settlement distribution estate.' statute, like other statutes limitations, statute repose. designed keep short might revived closing estates interminably delayed.5 policy reflected 25(a). Even matter right; 'may' duty do so. Under Rule, estate advanced warrant denial contrast provisions if 'Shall dismissed' deceased. word 'shall' ordinarily 'The language command'. Escoe Zerbst, 295 490, 493, 55 818, 819, 820, 79 1566. when same uses both 'shall', normal inference each used usual sense—the one permissive, mandatory. See United States ex rel. Siegel Thoman, 156 353, 360, 15 378, 380, 39 450. 7 Thus, Appeals, operates limitations mandate dismiss relates acts parties permits afford relief his prescribed limits. There would force petitioner's had, without more, set made. But does stop there. directs has been court, party. should construed override express direction taken court. Wallace States, 142 240, 244. 8 Reaso support this construction. sure, stipulated five 'still open undistributed'; open'; another distributed. At least ready closed there already distribution, work unfairness disruptive orderly expeditious administration enough say period, need prejudice result. For close door—finally, qualifiedly conditionally. federal law embodied direct impact probate state prompt those courts makes necessary. 9 Affirmed. 10 CHIEF JUSTICE REED took consideration decision case. 11 RUTLEDGE, dissenting. 12 *.' 13 I agree confers parties, hence appropriate circumstances refuse thereupon action. think ends two-year period.1 worded require ascribing such brings into collision terms difference convert rule's command dismissal discretionary mandatory one. merely narrow conditions exercised.2 14 find basis thinking limitation first sentence intended treated differently Rules, concerning they expressly forbid enlargement. committee drafted highly competent, spent exacting preparation, thoroughly cognizant what propose limitations. Meticulous attention them. By count index shows 134 references relating various actions. knew volume variety. conscious also many difficulties injustices had arisen virtue rigid whether laid judicial decision.3 deliberately chosen away rigidities substitute sound otherwise directed.4 This clearly, fully accurately themselves addition 6, (b) applicable here. 16 unambiguous declaration 'the neglect.'5 situation 'when period,' only exceptions. enlarging appeal. 73. forbidden enlargements 59 involve matters granting new trials. 17 respects alone be, 'jurisdictional.' rest exercise discretion. emphasized limits fixed periods narrowed requiring all, due neglect.6 Those my opinion, admittedly satisfied. 18 including subdivisions (c), general carefully drawn paramount application distinction between governing ctions courts.7 forth. approved Congress become modification. To assume additional committee, overlooked others have did intend declared effective according terms. am unable accept either conclusion. make exception forbidding covered face reason why salutary defeated.8 19 considerations grounds district court's determining deny amendment exclude this.9 changing interpretation opening door further restrictive amendments respect process. done, rule-making procedure. Indeed Advisory Committee, recently proposed rule, recommended rephrased eliminate question ascribed opinion. note appended recommendation states purpose guard likely flat limitation.10 committee's reasons confirm, rather disavow, section's originally meaning. 20 illustration kinds injustice sought avoid. altogether one-sided. effect throw impossible burden seeking neglect enforce equally helpless, heavier financial loss, depriving rightful recovery forcing them, some instances least, bear larger share common responsibility.11 21 judgment reversed remanded Rules. 22 BURTON joins dissent. Petitioner brought approximately 5,000 scattered throughout foreign countries. progress changed residences. petitioner, staff, during up changes residence deaths defendants. Cf. Ainsworth Gill Glass & Fixture Co., 104 83, Burke Canfield, 72 App.D.C. 127, 111 526, Mutual Benefit Health Accident Ass'n Snyder, 109 469. 1, supra. see Baltimore Ohio R. Joy, 173 226, 387, 43 677; Winslow Domestic Engineering F.Supp. 578. H.Rep. 429, 67th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2. Notes Committee original 'is Equity 45, 723 Appendix (Death Party—Revivor) U.S.C., Title 28, parties; administrator).' Prior 1921 now U.S.C. apply suits equity. 'a reasonable governing. 352 revival equity scire facias, applicable. 778 'Compiler's note' thereafter 33, (1928) 774 End, 99. However, supersede incorporate previously existing statutory provisions, wording different; statement 45' well together different section, indicate considered 45 still effective, seems authority, Electropure Sales Corporation Anglim, 451, 452; Gaskins Bonfils, 547, 550—551, adopt substance Had necessity wording, relation facias infra text. text infra. 60, all received wide comment. notes 10. Proceedings Institute Procedure Washington, Symposium New York City (1939) 83—84; Cleveland (1938) 210—211; Hearings before Judiciary House Representatives Regard Courts 75th 3d 60. full follows: 'Rule Enlargement. When (1) notice, therefor extended previous 5. constitutes holds, inquired 6(b)(1), 5, extension, clearly contemplated clause 'or order.' replete own initiative itself illustration. Certainly cannot said, view comprehensive language, applies large number imposed Such bring back evils defeat perhaps literal applications preserve. 6(c) doing proceeding affected term affects take civil pending it.' Report Proposed Amendments (1946) 2—6 points refused 25(a), see, e.g., 240; Reed South Atlantic Steamship 475; 469; cf. though ruled way. See, Schram O'Connor, 192; 83. 31—32. revision reads follows, revised appearing italics: appli ation excuse *' appends comment: 'This guards possible applying 2-year held limit, irrespective circumstances. Winkelman General Motors Corporation, S.D.N.Y.1939, 30 112; E.D.Ky.1941, 589; Photometric Products Corp. Redtke, S.D.N.Y., 1946, 394; 685, cert. granted, 328 829, 66 1025.' comment pp. 2—3, states: 'In considered. susceptible relieve times rules, construed.' 'With regard substitution, 1025, authority limit 25(a).' national banking associations created §§ 63, 64, 64. 63 shareholder 'individually responsible, ratably another, contracts, debts, engagements association, extent amount therein, par value invested shares.' (Emphasis added.) responsible thereof stock.' modified disputed. American Trust Grut, 80 155; First Nat. Bank Eureka, Kan., 129. said: 'It sufficient measured shares Bank, several fractional, represented Banco; assessment proportion former.' 368—369, 540, 541, 1146. Frank Giesy, 117 122, 125, omission pro rata strengthen position creditors, making shareholder's enforceable go free. supra, pay entitled con ribution proceeded against. secondary only, McClaine Rankin, 197 154, 161, 25 410, 412, 49 702, Ann.Cas. 500; National Boston Nichols, 294 Mass. 173, 181, 200 N.E. 869; relieved wholly compelled pay, neither proportionately needed fund actually collected discharge bank's obligations. Ware Shoals Martin, 61, 63. debt assuring payment Court's therefore cuts off possibility forced reduction amounts payments receiver's enforcement directly decedent shareholders' contribution regardless estate's comparative ability early late stage administration, occurs. cases, nearing stage; appears remain undistributed. begun 1936. Eight issue having established long eleven instituted comes nullify substantial effect. result, quite much protection afforded turn accidents life instances, many, variance nature fair distinctions irrelevant accidents. page 367,

Category: 8