4

gives district judges broad powers to transfer civil actions from one district to another "in the interest of justice." And the heart of Cowles' contention is that it would be unfair, inconvenient and unjust to subject it to a suit in the District Court of Florida. But the Iowa corporation has not denied at all that it could be subjected to this libel suit in the federal district court in Iowa or in some other district where the corporation is "doing business." Therefore, the question Cowles has been raising from the beginning is: In what federal district court does the fair administration of justice require that this lawsuit be tried? This poses precisely the problem which the rule of forum non conveniens is designed to meet and solve. In light of that rule I think we should reject Cowles' old dilatory motions and direct the District Court in Florida to try this case at once, unless Cowles can show that court that it would be in the interest of justice to try the case in another district. But the Court refuses to discard old outdated concepts for the new rule of convenience and fairness. Instead Polizzi is sent back to the District Court not to try his case on the merits but to listen a few more years to a debate over whether Cowles has had adequate notice of this suit and whether the corporation is "doing business" in Florida. In the meantime, Polizzi stands convicted in the eyes of his community on the basis of an unproved story. At least since Magna Charta some

28 U. S. C. § 1404 (a) provides:

"For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought."

A companion statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1406 (a), provides: "The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought."

people have thought that to delay justice may be to deny justice. I would order that Polizzi be given the trial he seeks.5

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree that the District Court and the Court of Appeals erroneously referred to the wrong venue statute in deciding the question of "doing business." Like MR. JUSTICE BLACK I think it unfortunate that this case must be prolonged by a remand to consider again the same "doing business" question under another statute. Unlike MR. JUSTICE BLACK, however, I find nothing in the majority opinion to suggest that the enlightened rationale of our more recent cases such as International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, has been abandoned or impaired. Nor do I find any hint in the majority opinion that anything in the Constitution or other federal law. prohibits the trial of this case in a United States District Court in Florida. My objection is that the majority have not ruled on this question at all.

5 28 U. S. C. § 2106 provides that this Court in reversing judgments may direct the District Court to enter such orders as are "just under the circumstances."

REPORTER'S NOTE.

The next page is purposely numbered 901. The numbers between 672 and 901 were purposely omitted, in order to make it possible to publish the per curiam decisions and orders in the current advance sheets or "preliminary prints" of the United States Reports with permanent page numbers, thus making the official citations available immediately.

The opinions delivered on June 8 and June 15, 1953, during the October Term, 1952, and the decisions in the Rosenberg case at the Special Terms of June 15 and June 18, 1953, will be reported in 346 U.S.

DECISIONS PER CURIAM AND ORDERS
FROM MARCH 9, 1953, THROUGH

JUNE 15, 1953.

MARCH 9, 1953.

Per Curiam Decision.

No. 451. ALLEN v. MISSISSIPPI. On appeal from, and petition for writ of certiorari to, the Supreme Court of Mississippi. Per Curiam: The appeal is dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2). The petition for writ of certiorari is denied. Forrest B. Jackson for appellant-petitioner. Reported below: 56 So. 2d 61.

Miscellaneous Orders.

No. 203. CITY OF NEW YORK v. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD Co., 344 U. S. 293. The motion to modify the judgment is denied.

No. 338, Misc. LOPER v. COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS. Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.

No. 340, Misc. CONNOR v. MAYO, CUSTODIAN OF FLORIDA STATE PRISON; and

No. 350, Misc. WATKINS v. DOWD, WARDEN. MOtions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.