Document: 337 U.S. 254 69 S.Ct. 1067 93 L.Ed. 1347 CITY OF MORGANTOWN, W. VA.v.ROYAL INS. CO., Ltd. No. 396. Argued Feb. 9, 10, 1949. Decided June 6, Mary Frances Brown, Clarksburg, Va., for petitioner. Mr. James M. Guiher, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice MURPHY delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case raises two questions: The appealability an order denying a demand trial by jury in federal court, and whether constitutional right to applies issue mutual mistake. 2 facts are these. Petitioner August 1947 was carrying insurance with respondent on hangar at its Municipal Airport. policy terms insured petitioner against loss fire or lightning amount $22,000. On 20, completely destroyed fire. filed proof loss. Shortly thereafter instituted action District Court Northern West Virginia reformation correction policy. It alleged substance that during preceding year had carried only windstorm hangar, same amount; currently force intended parties be renewal rior policy; premium paid as been insurance, much less than insurance; written through inadvertence both did not express intent either. prayed correct mistake declaration no liability answered, mistake, counterclaim recover written. Respondent answered counterclaim, alleging complaint. under Rule 38(b), Federal Rules Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.; moved strike demand; court granted motion set without jury. appealed from this ruling. respondent, Appeals dismissed appeal, 169 F.2d 713, is here writ certiorari. 335 890, 249. 3 In posture case, we first confronted question court's trial. Not being final decision, it appealable if all interlocutory decree granting refusing injunction § 129 Judicial Code, U.S.C.A. 227.1 urges Enelow v. New York Life Ins. Co., 293 379, 55 310, 79 440, Ettelson Metropolitan 317 188, 63 163, 87 176, upon us conclusive favor appealability. each those cases, plaintiff commenced according them company denied liability, fraud procurement policy, tried motion, held review rulings thus made were 129. 4 has part law since 1891, 26 Stat. 828, relation other aspects procedure rigid. Since 1912 history governing courts manifested slow but consistent process coalescing practice equity sides courts. adopted new rules, which rule 22 23 significant start procedural unification. A major step occurred 1915, enactment Law Equity Act, 38 956, added §§ 274a 274b Code. net effect these additions allow transfer begun either side side, necessity commencing action, permit determination questions arising actions actions, equitable defenses offered relief law. 5 state partly blended arose supra. there held, regard jury, analogy common one within meaning 6 completed 1938, adoption Procedure. Their purpose, among others, 'to secure just, speedy, inexpensive every action,' 1, end they prescribed identical cognizable formerly equity. After their adoption, problem present d argued rules so unified type could longer considered appealable. We appealable, changed substantial effect, noting position would have enjoined 7 Whatever validity common-law supported help here. situation where 'chancellor' can said enjoining 'judge' who cognizance pending rather judge making ruling manner he will try civil before himself. fiction sides, stay proceedings other, applicable proceeding existence stayed. appeal prosecuted form substance. Nothing language Code brings class decisions, distinctions our conclusions cases supply competent make what any ordinary understanding word one. 8 Trial vital cherished right, integral judicial system. importance such should Many orders equally important, may determine outcome litigation, reason converted into injunctions. Constitution guarantees litigants Procedure explicitly implements guarantee. Denial demanding party entitled course error. district subject most exacting scrutiny appeal. 9 But piecemeal appeals never encouraged. growth United States last half-century steadily direction simplicity directness administration justice. To end, careful rights parties, Court, pursuant specific authorization Congress, abolishing between establishing single practice. ill serve stated purposes perpetuate expressly disavow. dismissing judgment affirmed. 10 With disposed manner, do reach second presented: 11 Affirmed. 12 BURTON concurs 13 FRANKFURTER, concurring. 14 occasion arises calls more discriminating analysis conveyed phrase 'law now fused' indicate development whereby suit litigation. deeply rooted historical distinction becomes decisive. I reverse impair like add few words Court's opinion, join, clear why t e decision leaves decisions unimpaired. 15 earlier brought Of defendant asked cancellation because fraud. entered suspending law, until later-begun proceeding—trial jury—was concluded. called construe allowing limited categories decisions. U.S.C. 227, 1292. due actualities situation, staying chancellor even though whom pending. ground doubt scope. Section wrote Chief Hughes '* * contemplates decrees constitute exercise jurisdiction injunction, distinguished mere well equity, grant cause virtue inherent power control progress maintain orderly processes another appertains distinctively enforcement principles, refusal section 129, amended. And, aspect, makes difference stayed, *.' pages 381-382, page 311. 16 instrument. insured, way contested and, addition, sought recovery latter conventional which, Constitution, continued prior facts, therefore, precisely opposite case. Here intervention 'a justice.' cannot possibly old 1292, matter. 17 layman see postponement resulting injunction. Congress seen fit result other. Nonappealability intermediate deep-rooted general principle limiting establishment. very types presented action. stay, affirming untouched. 18 BLACK, RUTLEDGE concurs, dissenting. 19 think undesirable C urt overrule past saying so. holding decided unanimous 1942. today rejects interpretation amended given 440. And support adopts reasons arguments urged rejected cases. 20 Today brushes aside implying this, unlike two, himself.' true said, 382, 311, 'it view established 'proceedings national powers when sitting equity." also implies 'interlocutory substance.' 383, 'although interlocutory, (the order) amended.' 381, required hearing raised 'in advance purely legal issues.' That case; issues counterclaim. says 'injunction grants refuses 21 seems rest departure purpose out action.' supra, came after rules. specifically pointed follow unanimously contention. out, 191, 164, 'As Judge's based (insurance) policies; may, practical terminate effective respects issued chancellor. plaintiffs different restrained Nor differently circumstanced afforded restricted terminology used. statute looks made.' Thus despite rejection contention holds displaced basis overruling appears hostility 'piecemeal appeals' belief promote 'simplicity nd sustain adverse classified errors, admission evidence. relates whole involved, tribunal shall hear resolve evidence, jury? neither nor necessarily furthered compelling trials suffice. Moreover, idea inflexibly barring errors fatally invalidate entire procedure.* considering dogma unduly exalted lose sight fact Bill Rights appropriate Had event trial, all, confessedly 13(a) compelled sue filing court. Cf. American Mills Co. Surety 260 360, 364, 366, 43 149, 151, 67 306. Because compulsion penalizes As result, petitioner's determined least postponed. There many justify considerate treatment contentions invoke guarantee See, e.g., Scott Neely, 140 106, 109, 110, 712, 714, 35 358; Phoenix Mutual Bailey, Wall. 616, 501. 'Where granted, continued, modified, refused, dissolved decree, application dissolve modify taken provision retained Revised Title 62 869, Moore Vestal, Present Potential Role Certification Appellate Va.L.Rev. (1949); dissenting Judge Frank Machine Metals, Inc., De Bothezat Impeller Cir., 173 890.

Category: 8