Court Opinion

ID: 9443527
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:24:10.775002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:31.758313
License: Public Domain

HUTCHESON, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
In the Leiter case,1 in a specially concurring opinion, I noted my agreement with the conclusion of the main opinion, that, under the circumstances of the case, the court below erred in taking jurisdiction of, and adjudicating, the complicated issues tried below.
Because, however, I disagreed with the premise on which that conclusion was based, that the ¡court was without power to do so, and because it seemed clear to me that in the generality of its language the opinion would lead to the practical overruling of the Kronstadt case,2 I took pains to- point out the fundamental error'of the premise on which it rested, and the consequences to which I feared it would lead.
In this case, the consequences, which, with prophetic insight, I so clearly foretold, have come to pass. Done to death by differentiation until it is but a shadow of its former self, indeed fallen into a state of innocuous desuetude, for practical purposes the Kronstadt case is no more.
Lamenting that this is so, but unable to do more in dissent from this result than I have already done in the Leiter case, I refer, as my dissenting opinion here, to my concurring opinion there, adding only that Birmingham Finance Co. v. Chisolm, 5 Cir., 284 F. 840, on which the majority opinion relies, was not from Georgia but from Ala - battna, where the state law is different.
I respectfully dissent.

. Leiter v. Steinbach, 5 Cir., 184 F.2d 751.

. Kronstadt v. Citizens & Southern National Bank, 5 Cir., 80 F.2d 260.