Walter Emanuel Treanor

Treanor treated indispensable-party questions by asking whether the absent person's interests were separable from claims that could be decided among the parties before the court.

“The cause for a declaration of plaintiff’s rights respecting ownership of the policy is separable, and under Section 50 of the Judicial Code3 the District Court has authority to disregard it and to hear and determine the cause between the parties who are before the court.”

In affirming a preliminary injunction, Treanor compared the parties' relative harms and considered whether a later merits judgment could repair the injury caused by denying interim relief.

“To have refused the request obviously would have been more damaging to the plaintiff than to the defendants, and it is far from clear that the damage thus done could have been cured by a final adjudication in favor of the plaintiff.”

Treanor reversed a directed verdict when substantial evidence would have allowed a jury to find both a contractual violation and calculable loss on the defendant's counterclaim.

“We conclude that the trial court erred in withdrawing the evidence from the consideration of the jury and in directing a verdict against the defendant on the issues raised by its counterclaim and the replication thereto.”

Faced with a limited record, Treanor declined requests to forecast findings on questions not adequately developed before the factfinder.

“In view of the limited scope of the hearing before the Master and of his report which was before the District Court we do not feel that we should' anticipate findings or holdings which necessarily will involve factors which, at the most, were incidentally involved, or referred to, in the hearing before the Master.”

Treanor would not entertain an objection to the verdict form after defense counsel acquiesced in the form proposed at trial.

“defendants cannot take advantage of it since they acquiesced in the form of the verdict proposed by the court.”