Court Opinion

ID: 9442622
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 18:53:40.852109+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:09.634600
License: Public Domain

DENMAN, .Chief Judge
(dissenting).
The record below and the proceedings here show that at no time have appellants sought to amend their complaint, which, on its face, shows no act of defendant affecting any interstate commerce of appellants. Since they do not seek such amendment, the district court’s judgment should be affirmed on that ground, and without more.
It is a wrong to. appellee to manufacture a contention raising an issue with which appellee was not faced below nor is faced here.
Since the transcript of the evidence was kept from the record by the act of appellants, and since they do not now seek .to háve it included, Rule 19 of .our rules gives to appellee the right to. have the Case decided solely on-the record as designated.' It is not claimed by the appellants that the evidence shows any-affecting of any interstate commerce.- I think it error and a wrong to appellee to hold that there is such - evidence and to' order the court to make a' finding thereon.-
Furthermore, assuming we can consider ■ the evidence before the district judge, I think it a violation of our Rule 19 not to order the transcript brought before us, to determine in this single proceeding whether the' district court erred in not making the finding now ordered to be made. It well may be that the transcript shows that at the-hearing the appellants there were given full freedom to introduce evidence' on the issue of defendant’s acts affecting appellants’ commerce :and that none' was introduced, and hence it - well may be that the litigation be ended in .this court now. This court’s order, when obeyed, well may lead to another appeal, with its costs, loss of time and consumption of judicial effort below and here.
ORR-and POPE, Circuit Judges.