The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM IN THE MATTER OF TRANSAMERICA CORPORATION STATEMENT AND ORDER ON RESPONDENT'S EXCEPTION, APPEAL AND REQUEST DATED AUGUST 29. 1949 Respondent has f i l e d w i t h the Board an exception, appeal and request, dated August 29, 1949, e n t i t l e d "Exception and Appeal from Ruling of Hearing O f f i c e r Denying Respondent's Motion t o Dismiss f o r F a i l u r e o f Proof, and Request f o r Adjournment o f Hearing Date Prescribed i n Said Ruling. 1 1 Neither due process o f law, nor any s t a t u t e applicable t o t h i s proceeding, requires the Board t o e n t e r t a i n o r determine i n t e r l o c u t o r y appeals from the r u l i n g s o f i t s hearing o f f i c e r s . And no such appeals are contemplated or authorized by the Board's Rules o f P r a c t i c e . On t h e con- t r a r y , the e f f e c t o f Rules V I I and V I I I o f the Board's Rules i s t o preclude i n t e r l o c u t o r y appeals, and t o r e q u i r e t h a t exceptions t o a hearing o f f i c e r ' s r u l i n g s be f i l e d a f t e r the f i l i n g o f the hearing o f f i c e r ' s r e p o r t containi n g h i s recommended d e c i s i o n , and "be argued only a t the f i n a l hearing, any, on the merits before the Board or one o r more members thereof.' 1 if The r u l i n g o f the Hearing O f f i c e r upon respondent's motion t o dismiss f o r f a i l u r e o f proof was n o t an i n i t i a l decision of the case w i t h i n the meaning o f the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Procedure A c t ; i t was not a recommended decisi o n w i t h i n the meaning o f the Act o r o f the Board's Rules, and no r e p o r t i n connection w i t h the r u l i n g was f i l e d or required. Respondent's ex^ ception t o and appeal from such r u l i n g i s therefore dismissed as premature, -2b u t w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e t o respondent's r i g h t t o renew t h e same i n accordance w i t h the p r o v i s i o n s o f the Board's above mentioned Rules V I I and V I I I . I n s o f a r as respondent's exception and appeal challenges t h e Heari n g O f f i c e r ' s a c t i o n i n f i x i n g September 19, 1949, as the date on which hearings are t o be resumed, we may add t h a t w h i l e such a c t i o n i s n o t subj e c t t o i n t e r l o c u t o r y appeal — and nothing i n Rule IV o f the Board's Rules o f P r a c t i c e provides otherwise — the Board has t r e a t e d respondent's r e quest f o r an adjournment o f the hearing date as a motion f o r an adjournment o r continuance o f the h e a r i n g s , and has c a r e f u l l y considered respondent's b r i e f and the a f f i d a v i t o f respondent's counsel i n support o f respondent's request. However, f o r the reasons s t a t e d by the Hearing O f f i c e r i n h i s Notice denying respondent's motion t o dismiss f o r f a i l u r e o f p r o o f , the Board i s o f the o p i n i o n t h a t the date p r e s c r i b e d by the Hearing O f f i c e r f o r the resumption o f hearings i s n o t unreasonable. Respondent's request t h a t the hearings be adjourned u n t i l a date a t l e a s t f i v e months a f t e r the Board's d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f respondent's exception and appeal i s t h e r e f o r e denied. QBPEft For the reascns s e t f o r t h i n the f o r e g o i n g statement, i t is ORDERED t h a t : 1. Respondent's exception t o and appeal from t h e Hearing O f f i c e r ' s r u l i n g denying respondent's motion t o dismiss f o r f a i l u r e o f p r o o f be, and i t hereby i s , dismissed, but w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e t o respondent's r i g h t t o renew the same i n the manner and a t the time p r e s c r i b e d by Rules V I I and V I I I o f t h e Board's Rules o f P r a c t i c e .
@FedFRASER