Page:Yardley v. Houghton Mifflin (S.D.N.Y. 1938).pdf/5

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
YARDLEY v. HOUGHTON MIFFLIN CO.
25 F.Supp. 361
365

of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.A. § 40, as part of the costs herein.

I shall determine the basis of this charge in accordance with the canons of charges which I suggested in the case of In re Osofsky, D.C., 50 F.2d 925.

There will, of course, be only a single attorneys fee which will cover the dismissal of the complaint and the judgment for the defendant on the counter-claim.

V. Both parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. I am sending them both back to the respective attorneys.

The defendant’s proposed findings may be returned corrected in accordance with my opinion. I think they were not in very good form. The conclusions of law should be numbered separately from the findings of fact.

The defendant’s findings of fact and conclusions of law must be submitted to me for signature through the Clerk’s office with five days’ notice to counsel for the plaintiff who on the return day of such notice must submit any suggested findings, or, better still, criticisms of the findings of fact and conclusions of law proposed by the defendant’s counsel, if the plaintiff’s counsel does not consider them to be in accordance with my opinion.

All proposed findings submitted by either party must be typed in triple spacing so that I may conveniently correct them if I wish to do so.

Only the findings of fact and conclusions of law which I sign will be filed as part of the record herein.

VI. Not until after the findings of fact and conclusions of law are submitted and the attorneys fee fixed and the costs taxed, may the defendant submit a final decree on the dismissal of the complaint and on the counter-claim.

In re COHEN.

No. 35106.

District Court, E. D. New York.

Nov. 16, 1938.


In Bankruptcy. Proceeding in the matter of Morris Cohen, bankrupt, on the bankrupt’s motion for an order permitting amendment of schedules, opposed by Gussie Goldberg.

Motion denied.

Julius L. Goldstein, of New York City (Julius L. Goldstein and Arthur Furst, both of New York City, of counsel), for Gussie Goldberg.

Isidor Sachs, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for bankrupt.

GALSTON, District Judge.

The bankrupt moves for an order permitting him to amend his schedules in bankruptcy so as to list a contingent tort claim of one Gussie Goldberg for $3,000.

He was adjudicated a bankrupt on June 11, 1938, and his schedules, as required by the bankruptcy law, were duly filed. They did not include the claim of one Gussie Goldberg who had instituted an action in the City Court of Kings County against the bankrupt on or about December 22, 1937. In that complaint it is alleged that the defendant (the bankrupt herein) wrongfully kept a chow dog, knowing him to be ferocious and vicious and accustomed to bite and attack human beings, and that the dog attacked and bit the plaintiff, Gussie Goldberg, as a re-