Court Opinion

ID: 9642285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:53:53.65015+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:45.569346
License: Public Domain

*126CLARK, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the dismissal of the appeal, but would add that the order below also lacked finality under Federal Rule 54 (b), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, because it did not settle whatever legal claim the parties might have arising out of one transaction or occurrence, but only at most rejected two out of an asserted four legal theories as to such claim. Though there were four stated counts here, in effect these were only different legal ideas of recovery as - to the one single matter involved'. The district court’s action in dismissing two counts against the trustees, while continuing the other two counts against them for amendment, was essentially futile, since after trial judgment must be given according to the right of the case, whether the correct legal theory has been presented or not, Rules 15(b) and 54(c), and hence the defendants have obtained nothing of substance by the partial dismissal below. At any rate, the new rules make it clear that it is not differing legal theories, but differing occurrences or transactions, which form the basis of separate units of judicial action. Cf. Rules 10(b), 13(a) and (g), 15(c), 54(b); 1- Moore’s Federal Practice 145-147, 160-168. And that, it seems to me, and as I there stated, is the real ground upon which Collins v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 2 Cir., 106 F.2d 83, 86, is to be placed.