Fred M. Vinson

“ It is true that the reviser's notes to § 1404 (a) , although citing a Federal Employers' Liability Act decision, make no reference to the antitrust laws or to our previous decision in this litigation. The Government therefore urges that our disposition of the Liability Act cases is not conclusive. We disagree. The notes cite the Liability Act decision 'As an example of the need of such a provision.' Obviously, an example is not a complete catalogue. ”

“ After September 1, 1948, the effective date of the present Judicial Code, [1] respondents filed a new motion under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, citing § 1404 (a) , which reads as follows: '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.' Again the District Court below granted the motion. ”

“ The Government contends, for example, that Congress intended § 1404 (a) to apply only to actions the venue provisions of which were formerly contained in Title 28, rather than to 'any civil action' (the venue requirements in antitrust cases are defined in 15 U.S.C. § 22, 15 U.S.C.A. § 22; in Liability Act cases, 45 U.S.C. § 56, 45 U.S.C.A. § 56) ; and that the legislative history establishes very clearly that Congress had no desire substantially t change the law-indeed, the Government urges us to disregard the reviser's notes which were printed in the House Reports. ”