Claim at Law

The Chase & Sanborn Corporation filed a petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in 1983. A plan approved by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida then vested in respondent Nordberg, the trustee in bankruptcy, causes of action for fraudulent conveyances. In 1985 respondent filed suit against petitioners Granfinanciera, S. A., and Medex, Ltda., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that petitioners had received $1.7 million from Chase & Sanborn's corporate predecessor within one year of the bankruptcy petition without receiving consideration or reasonably equivalent value. The complaint sought to avoid the transfers and recover damages under 11 U. S. C. §§ 548(a)(1) and (a)(2), 550(a)(1) (1982 ed. and Supp. V). The District Court referred the proceedings to the Bankruptcy Court. Over five months later respondent served a summons on petitioners in Bogota, Colombia shortly before the Colombian Government nationalized Granfinanciera. In their answer both petitioners requested a trial by jury on all issues so triable. The Bankruptcy Judge denied petitioners' request for a jury trial, deeming a suit to recover a fraudulent transfer a core action that originally, under the English common law, as I understand it, was a non-jury issue. Following a bench trial, the court dismissed with prejudice respondent's actual fraud claim but entered judgment for respondent on the constructive fraud claim in the amount of $1,500,000 against Granfinanciera and $180,000 against Medex. The District Court affirmed without discussing petitioners' claim that they were entitled to a jury trial. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit also affirmed, 835 F. 2d 1341 (1988), ruling that petitioners lacked a statutory right to a jury trial because the constructive fraud provision contains no mention of such a right and 28 U. S. C. § 1411 affords jury trials only in personal injury or wrongful death suits, and that the Seventh Amendment supplied no right because fraudulent conveyance actions are equitable in nature and bankruptcy proceedings are inherently equitable. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether petitioners were entitled to a jury trial, 486 U. S. 1054 (1988), and now reverses.

In December 1801, William Marbury, Dennis Ramsay, Robert Townsend Hooe, and William Harper petitioned the Supreme Court for a rule requiring Secretary of State James Madison to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue commanding delivery of their commissions as justices of the peace in the District of Columbia. The applicants had been nominated by outgoing President John Adams. The Senate had advised and consented to the appointments. Commissions in due form were signed by the President with the seal of the United States affixed by the Secretary of State. During the proceedings the Court heard testimony from Department of State clerks Jacob Wagner and Daniel Brent, who described the preparation and handling of the commissions. Wagner recalled that two commissions had been signed but could not confirm whether those of the applicants were recorded. Brent believed Marbury's and Hooe's commissions were made out. Ramsay's was omitted by mistake. None of the Adams-signed commissions for District justices were recorded. Attorney General Levi Lincoln, who had acted as Secretary of State, testified that he had seen signed and sealed commissions but did not know whether any for the applicants were ever sent out. James Marshall's affidavit stated that on March 4, 1801, he received and later returned several commissions from the Secretary of State's office, including those for Hooe and Harper. The applicants also submitted the affidavit of Hazen Kimball confirming that commissions for Marbury and Hooe were in the office on March 3, 1801. Madison did not appear or show cause after the rule was served. The motion for the writ itself was heard in the February 1803 term.

In December 1949, petitioner Dairy Queen, Inc. entered into a written licensing contract with the respondent owners of the DAIRY QUEEN trademark under which petitioner agreed to pay $150,000 for the exclusive right to use the trademark in portions of Pennsylvania. The payments consisted of a small initial sum followed by 50 percent of amounts received on sales and franchises together with minimum annual payments regardless of receipts. In August 1960, the respondents sent petitioner a letter claiming a material breach of the contract due to default in excess of $60,000 on the payment provisions and notifying petitioner of the termination of the contract and cancellation of its rights to use the trademark unless the default was remedied immediately. When petitioner continued to deal with the trademark despite the notice of termination, the respondents brought an action based upon their view that a material breach of contract had occurred. The complaint alleged that petitioner had ceased paying as required, that the default constituted a material breach, that petitioner was contesting the cancellation and continuing business as an authorized dealer, that this constituted trademark infringement, that petitioner's financial condition was unstable, and that respondents faced irreparable injury with no adequate remedy at law. It sought temporary and permanent injunctions against future use of the franchise and trademark, an accounting to determine the exact amount owing with a judgment for that amount, and an injunction pending the accounting to prevent collection of money from Dairy Queen stores. Petitioner answered by denying any breach of contract and alleging that the parties had entered an oral agreement in January 1955 modifying the written contract to remove the minimum annual payment requirement. Petitioner also raised defenses of laches and estoppel arising from respondents' delay in asserting the claim after petitioner had expended large sums developing the trademark rights, and alleged antitrust violations by respondents. Petitioner endorsed a demand for trial by jury on the answer. The district court granted respondents' motion to strike the jury demand on the alternative grounds that the action was purely equitable or that any legal issues were incidental to equitable issues. Petitioner sought mandamus in the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to compel the district judge to vacate the order striking the jury demand. After that court denied the request without opinion, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Fox West Coast Theatres, Inc. operated a movie theatre in San Bernardino, California and exhibited films under contracts with distributors granting exclusive first-run rights and clearance periods during which no other theatre could show the same pictures. Beacon Theatres, Inc. built a drive-in theatre about 11 miles away and notified Fox that it considered the clearance provisions to be violations of the antitrust laws, threatening treble damage suits against Fox and its distributors. Fox filed a complaint for declaratory relief in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California alleging a controversy under the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act. The complaint sought a declaration that the clearances were reasonable and not in violation of the antitrust laws together with an injunction preventing Beacon from instituting any antitrust actions against Fox and its distributors arising out of the controversy. Beacon filed an answer denying the threats, a counterclaim against Fox, and a cross-claim against an intervening exhibitor. These pleadings asserted that there was no substantial competition between the theatres, that the clearances were unreasonable, and that a conspiracy existed between Fox and distributors to manipulate contracts so as to restrain trade and monopolize first-run pictures. They sought treble damages. Beacon demanded a jury trial of the factual issues under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b). The district court directed that the issues raised by Fox's complaint, including the question of competition between the theatres, be tried to the court first under Rules 42(b) and 57 before any jury determination of the antitrust violation charges in the counterclaim and cross-claim. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied Beacon's petition for mandamus to vacate the district court's orders, holding that the trial judge had acted within his discretion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.