Although the opinions in the five Fox bankruptcy appeals were filed in the name of Judge Joseph Buffington, all of these opinions were written by J. Warren Davis. Affirmed. ANSWER FINDING NO. 38 The decisions by Judge Davis in the five Fox bankruptcy appeals to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit were corrupt and had been influenced by William Fox in his favor by payments aggregating $27,500.00 made by him to Judge Davis. ANSWER Affirmed. FINDING No. 39 Judge Davis, during the course of his judicial career in the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, let it be known to his fellow judges that he was willing to decide cases coming before him in violation of his judicial oath to adjudge cases only on the merits and without respect to persons. ANSWER Refused as not based on any testimony now in the record. Requests for Conclusions of Law Submitted by Amici Curiae CONCLUSION No. 1 During the period from 1935 to 1938, there existed between Judge J. Warren Davis and Morgan S. Kaufman a corrupt and illicit combination to obstruct justice. ANSWER Affirmed. CONCLUSION No. 2 Universal Oil Products Company, through its agent Morgan S. Kaufman, by means of a bribe corruptly influenced Judge J. Warren Davis as a member of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the case entitled "Root Refining Company, Appellant, v. Universal Oil Products Company, Appellee," Appeal Nos. 5546 and 5648, pending in that court, and the decision prepared and filed by the said Judge Davis in said case was in fact rendered by Davis pursuant to his understanding that he would be paid a bribe by Universal Oil Products Company if his decision was favorable to said company. ANSWER I refuse this request as stated, although I have found, as stated in the body of my report, that at the time he voted for affirmance in the Root case, Judge Davis knew or at least expected that if the decision was favorable to Universal he would receive some monetary compensation from Kaufman. CONCLUSION No. 3 The judgments of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the case entitled "Root Refining Company v. Universal Oil Products Company" are tainted with fraud and corruption and are invalid. Affirmed. ANSWER CONCLUSION No. 4 Whether or not the decision rendered by Judge J. Warren Davis in the case entitled "Root Refining Company v. Universal Oil Products Company” is 'sound in law and in fact is immaterial, and the invalidity of the judgment because of fraud and corruption is in no way affected by consideration of the soundness of the decision. Affirmed. ANSWER Requests for Findings of Fact Submitted by Universal Oil Products Company FINDING No. 1 The case of Universal Oil Products Company v. Winkler-Koch Engineering Company and Root Refining Company (the consolidation of two cases commenced in 1929 and 1931 respectively) was tried in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware before Judge Nields, beginning on June 21, 1932, and ending on July 28, 1932. On April 27, 1934, the District Court decided the case in favor of Universal, finding that the Dubbs and Egloff patents were valid and infringed. An interlocutory decree in conformity with the decision was entered on May 18, 1934. An appeal was taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on July 12, 1934, and argued on January 7, 1935, before Judges Buffington, Davis, and Thompson. On June 26, 1935, the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decree of the District Court. A petition for rehearing was denied on August 6, 1935. On September 3, 1935, a petition for a writ of certiorari was filed in the Supreme Court of the United States by Root Refining Company; said petition was denied on October 21, 1935. ANSWER Affirmed. FINDING NO. 2 The attorneys for Universal who actually prepared and conducted the trial of the case and prepared the briefs and argued the case, and whose names appeared of record were Thomas G. Haight, Hugh M. Morris, William F. Hall and Charles M. Thomas. Affirmed. ANSWER FINDING No. 3 William D. Whitney, of the firm of Cravath, de Gersdorff, Swaine & Wood of New York, did a substantial amount of work in the case and wrote a part of the briefs in both courts, although his name did not appear as counsel on the briefs or of record in the Root case. Affirmed. ANSWER FINDING No. 4 For many years prior to the Root case and until his death in May 1933, Frank L. Belknap was chief patent counsel for Universal. In that capacity, Belknap had complete authority over the conduct of all patent litigation in which Universal was engaged, including authority to retain such lawyers as he deemed advisable. ANSWER I refuse this request as stated. The testimony does not show that Belknap had complete authority over the question as to what lawyers should be retained. FINDING No. 5 In the spring of 1932, Universal had no counsel in Pennsylvania and was contemplating the institution of important litigation in that State. Affirmed. ANSWER FINDING NO. 6 In the spring of 1932, Belknap retained Morgan S. Kaufman, a Scranton attorney, on behalf of Universal. ANSWER I refuse this request. The evidence does not satisfactorily show when Kaufman was retained or who retained him. FINDING NO. 7 At the time of his employment by Belknap, Kaufman was a prominent member of the legal profession in Pennsylvania, well known to the Judges of the State and Federal courts of Pennsylvania. ANSWER I refuse this request. Prior to 1932, Kaufman had practiced very little in the courts, although he was a Referee in Bankruptcy. It is true he appears to have been known to at least some of the judges of the State and Federal courts by reason of the fact that he made a practice of entertaining them. FINDING NO. 8 In 1932 and prior thereto Kaufman practiced in both the state and federal courts and had appeared as counsel for litigants in cases before the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. ANSWER Affirmed. FINDING No. 9 At the time Belknap retained Kaufman, he insisted, as a term of Kaufman's employment, that Kaufman should not accept employment from any other oil company whose interest might conflict with Universal's. ANSWER Refused, as not established by satisfactory credible evidence. FINDING NO. 10 At that time Belknap advised Kaufman of the pendency of the Root case and informed him that Universal contemplated bringing certain actions in Pennsylvania in which he desired Kaufman to be active. ANSWER Refused, as not established by satisfactory credible evidence. FINDING NO. 11 Belknap did not make any specific arrangement in 1932 regarding Kaufman's compensation but merely assured Kaufman that he would be well compensated. ANSWER Refused, as not established by satisfactory credible evidence. FINDING No. 12 At the time Belknap retained Kaufman, he advised Halle of that fact. ANSWER Refused, as not established by satisfactory credible evidence. FINDING NO. 13 One of the reasons Belknap retained Kaufman in 1932 was that he "wouldn't like to have Kaufman in on the side of the people we [Universal] were suing." ANSWER Refused, as not established by satisfactory credible evidence, FINDING NO. 14 After he had retained Kaufman, Belknap advised Judges 'Haight and Morris and Hall and Thomas of that fact and that Kaufman was available to them generally for any work they might wish him to do in the Root ease. ANSWER Refused. The evidence does not satisfactorily show the facts I am asked to find by this request. FINDING NO. 15 Kaufman was not called upon to take any active part in the Root litigation because Judge Haight thought there was not sufficient time to educate a new lawyer in the issues involved in the case. ANSWER I refuse this request insofar as it suggests that the only reason for not using Kaufman's services was Judge Haight's feeling that there was not time to educate him. FINDING NO. 16 Judge Morris did not place Kaufman's name on the brief in the District Court, as he believed the list of lawyers was already long enough. ANSWER I refuse this request as stated. Judge Morris was very uncertain when he first knew Kaufman was retained; when he heard Kaufman's name mentioned in 1941 he at first had no recollection that he had ever been connected with the case. FINDING NO. 17 Kaufman's name was not placed on the brief in the Circuit Court of Appeals because Judge Haight thought that the addition of Kaufman's name to the brief, when he had been inactive at the trial, might be resented by Judge Buffington, who was a close personal friend of Kaufman. Kaufman first casually mentioned the subject of his retainer fee to Halle in 1934. ANSWER I refuse this request as stated. The contemporary documentary evidence does not sustain Halle's testimony that Kaufman had talked with him in 1934. FINDING NO. 19 Sometime prior to September 12, 1935, Kaufman called on Halle and asked for the payment of $35,000 for the period he had been under retainer. Halle stated he would recommend a compromise payment of $25,000. ANSWER I refuse this request as stated. Kaufman was paid $25.000 on October 22, 1935, but how this sum was agreed upon, or when, depended entirely upon the testimony of Halle, upon which I am unwilling to base a finding. FINDING NO. 20 On September 12, 1935, a conference was held at Universal's office in New York at which Halle, Haight, Whitney, and Dwight were present. Affirmed. ANSWER FINDING NO, 21 Richard E. Dwight and William D. Whitney were general counsel of Universal, and also represented, respectively, Standard Oil Company of California and Shell Union Oil Corporation, the voting stockholders of Universal. ANSWER Affirmed. FINDING NO. 22 At the September 12, 1935, conference Halle and Haight told Whitney and Dwight that Kaufman had been engaged in 1932 by Belknap and that he had been under a general retainer for more than three years. ANSWER I refuse this request as stated. The evidence has not convinced me that Judge Haight made any statement of his own knowledge with respect to the time when Kaufman was retained or the terms of his retainer. FINDING NO. 23 At the September 12, 1935, conference Halle advised Whitney and Dwight in Haight's presence that Belknap had promised Kaufman that he would be liberally compensated and that Kaufman had been in to see Halle and had asked for $35,000. ANSWER I affirm this request insofar as it says that Halle made the statements alleged of which there is evidence. I refuse it insofar as it seems to suggest that Judge Haight by his presence assented of his own knowledge to what Halle said. FINDING NO. 24 At the September 12, 1935, conference Judge Haight advised Whitney, Dwight, and Halle that Kaufman had performed no actual service in the Root case and that his compensation was solely a matter of retainer. Judge Haight stated that Kaufman had been retained by Belknap in 1932 principally because Universal expected to bring some important litigation in Pennsylvania. Judge Haight also stated that he desired to use Kaufman in the Crew-Levick case and in other matters pending or to be brought in the Third Circuit, namely, against Empire and Skelly. ANSWER I refuse this request as stated. The testimony as to the conversation at this conference depended entirely upon the unaided recollection of the conferees more than six years after the event, and I am satisfied from all of the testimony in the record that any statements made by Judge Haight with respect to Kaufman were merely a repetition of what he had been told by Halle and that he assumed no responsibility for their accuracy. The evidence has not convinced me that Judge Haight said that he desired to use Kaufman in any other cases. FINDING NO. 25 The conference of September 12, 1935, unanimously approved paying Kaufman $25,000 for his claim for past retainer. ANSWER I affirm this request with the qualification that whatever approval was given to Kaufman's fee was based on statements made by Halle. FINDING NO. 26 Dwight and Whitney relied in their action upon the statements of Judge Haight and Halle. ANSWER I refuse this request insofar as it infers that Dwight and Whitney relied upon statements of Judge Haight. The evidence has not convinced me that Judge Haight made any statements concerning Kaufman of his own knowledge. |