Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A. The Origins
Pennoyer v. Neff
Notes and Problems
B. The Modern Constitutional Formulation of Power
1. Redefining Constitutional Power
International Shoe Co. v. Washington
Notes and Problems
McGee v. International Life Insurance Co.
Hanson v. Denckla
Notes and Problems
2. Absorbing In Rem Jurisdiction
Shaffer v. Heitner
Notes and Problems
3. Specific Jurisdiction: The Modern Cases
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
Notes and Problems
J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro
Notes and Problems
Abdouch v. Lopez
Notes and Problems
4. General Jurisdiction
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown
Notes and Problems
Daimler AG v. Bauman
Notes and Problems
Burnham v. Superior Court
Notes and Problems
Note on the Mechanics of Jurisdiction: Challenge and Waiver
Notes and Problems
C. Consent as a Substitute for Power
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute
Notes and Problems
D. The Constitutional Requirement of Notice
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.
Notes and Problems
Notes and Problems on Service of Process
E. Self-Imposed Restraints on Jurisdictional Power: Long-Arm Statutes, Venue, and Discretionary Refusal of
Jurisdiction
1. Long-Arm Statutes as a Restraint on Jurisdiction
Gibbons v. Brown
Notes and Problems
2. Venue as a Further Localizing Principle
Notes and Problems
Thompson v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
Notes and Problems
3. Declining Jurisdiction: Transfer and Forum Non Conveniens
Piper Aircraft v. Reyno
Notes and Problems
Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court
Notes and Problems
Assessment Questions
Analysis of Assessment Questions
Chapter 6: Pleading
Chapter 7: Discovery
A. Modern Discovery
B. The Stages of Discovery
1. Required Disclosures—First Round
Notes and Problems
2. Documents, Things, Land, and Bytes: Requests for Production (Rules 34 and 45)
Notes and Problems
3. Asking Questions in Writing, Seeking Admissions: Interrogatories and Admissions (Rules 33 and 36)
Notes and Problems
4. Asking Questions in Person: Depositions (Rule 30) and Physical and Mental Evaluations (Rule 35)
Note on Physical and Mental Examinations
Notes and Problems
5. Pretrial Witness Lists and the Pretrial Order
David and Goliath Do Discovery: A Taxonomy of Problems
C. The Scope of Discovery
1. Relevance
Favale v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport
Notes and Problems
2. Proportionality and Privacy
Price v. Leflore County Detention Center
Rengifo v. Erevos Enterprises, Inc.
Notes and Problems
3. Privilege
Notes and Problems
4. Trial Preparation Material
Hickman v. Taylor
Notes and Problems
D. Experts
Notes and Problems
Thompson v. The Haskell Co.
Chiquita International Ltd. v. M/V Bolero Reefer
Notes and Problems
E. Ensuring Compliance and Controlling Abuse of Discovery
1. Types of Discovery Disputes
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLP
Notes and Problems
2. Ensuring Compliance
Notes and Problems
3. Remedies: Management and Sanctions
Security National Bank of Sioux City v. Abbott Laboratories
Notes and Problems
Assessment Questions
Analysis of Assessment Questions
A. Joinder of Claims
1. Joinder of Claims by Plaintiff
a. Historical Background
b. The Federal Rules
c. Joinder and Jurisdiction
Notes and Problems
2. Claims by the Defendant: Counterclaims
Plant v. Blazer Financial Services
Notes and Problems
B. Joinder of Parties
1. By Plaintiffs
Mosley v. General Motors Corp.
Notes and Problems
2. By Defendants: Third-Party Claims
Price v. CTB, Inc.
Notes and Problems
3. Compulsory Joinder
Temple v. Synthes Corp.
Notes and Problems
Helzberg’s Diamond Shops v. Valley West Des Moines Shopping Center
Notes and Problems
C. Intervention
Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Notes and Problems
Martin v. Wilks
Notes and Problems
D. Interpleader
Southern Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co. v. Davis
Notes and Problems
E. Class Actions
1. Introduction
2. The Class Action and the Constitution
a. Representative Adequacy
Hansberry v. Lee
Notes and Problems
b. Personal Jurisdiction
Phillips Petroleum v. Shutts
Notes and Problems
3. The Class Action and Federalism
Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles
Notes and Problems
4. Statutory Requirements
Notes and Problems
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
Notes and Problems
5. Settlement of Class Actions and the “Settlement Class”
Notes and Problems
a. Fees
Notes and Problems
b. Damages and Injunctive Relief
c. Settlement and Dismissal
Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor
Notes and Problems
Assessment Questions
Analysis of Assessment Questions
Table of Cases
Table of Citations to the Judicial Code (28 U.S.C.)
Table of Citations to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Table of Authorities
Index
James, G. Hazard, and J. Leubsdorf, Civil Procedure (5th ed. 2001), is cited as James, Hazard, and Leubsdorf; C.
Wright, Federal Courts (5th ed. 1994), is cited as Wright, Federal Courts; J. Moore, Federal Practice and Procedure
(1969), is cited as Moore; C. Wright, A. Miller, and E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure (1969), is cited as
Wright and Miller.
Those whose assistance was acknowledged in the prefaces of earlier editions created the foundations on which
this book rests. The senior author is delighted to report that after seven editions in which he had to fly solo, he has
been able to entice Professor Joanna C. Schwartz to join this edition. Prof. Schwartz brings to the book not only
insights from practice as a civil litigator but also the pedagogical acumen of a prize-winning teacher.
Both of us want to thank many teachers and students who have used previous editions for detailed, thoughtful,
and constructive suggestions. As with past editions, this one has been greatly improved by the library staff at
UCLA’s Hugh & Hazel Darling Law Library, whose ingenuity is exceeded only by their helpfulness.
We hope you like the result.
Joanna C. Schwartz
Stephen C. Yeazell
November 2015
Sylvester Pennoyer, photograph. Courtesy of the Library of Congress.
Tallyho Coaching, Sioux City, photograph. Courtesy of the Library of Congress.
CIVIL PROCEDURE
a party is entitled to the discovery he seeks—can determine who wins and who loses.
But if procedure were only a set of rules about the etiquette of lawsuits, it would be hard to justify its place in
the first-year curriculum. Another facet of procedure justifies that place: Procedure mirrors our most basic notions of
fairness and the meaning of justice. If coming to a quick decision were all that mattered, we could flip coins to
decide lawsuits. We don’t flip coins because solving an important dispute without reference to its merits strikes us as
unjust. This bedrock principle of fairness and justice finds expression both in the details of procedural design and in
several parts of the U.S. Constitution, most notably the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments.
Commentators, litigants, and courts are not, however, in agreement about what procedural mechanisms best
reflect these overarching constitutional values. Some argue that our system is overly obsessed with permitting the
adversarial airing of grievances. Proposed solutions range from streamlining adjudication to nonadjudicative dispute
resolution. The system’s defenders argue both that the critics overstate the pathologies of modern civil litigation and
that adjudication has proved to be a major force for social justice, economic growth, and political stability over the
past two centuries. Such conflicting views lurk in the background at every turn of our path.
This chapter seeks to give you some feel for procedural issues as they arise in the life cycle of a civil lawsuit. It
will raise more questions than it answers, but it will offer you a sense of the course of civil litigation and a taste of
the kinds of problems lawyers describe as procedural. Seeing the whole picture all at once will make more
meaningful our closer investigation of these issues in the weeks to come.
We start with a simple and plausible fact situation: Peters, a student at the University of Michigan, spent his
winter vacation in Champaign, Illinois, where his parents have recently moved from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. While
visiting his parents, Peters was seriously injured in an automobile accident with Dodge, a lifelong resident of
Champaign and owner of a popular ice cream parlor in the town. The remainder of this chapter deals with issues that
might flow from this everyday occurrence.
Consider first whether and how this accident might enter the formal legal system. Most such episodes will never get
near lawyers or courts. If Peters had adequate medical insurance and no lost wages, he might have little reason to sue
Dodge. Dodge (or his insurer) might well offer Peters a satisfactory settlement before a suit is filed. Or Peters might
want to sue but be unable to find a lawyer who would take his case: Most plaintiffs’ lawyers work on a contingent
fee basis in such cases (meaning they are paid a portion of any recovery the plaintiff receives), and the lawyer might
not think the potential for recovery or the amount recoverable warrants the time she would have to invest in the case.
These three alternatives describe the fate of most disputes that arise in our society, with the consequence that
they will never enter the official judicial system. For the rest of this book—and for the rest of law school—you will
be dealing with the exceptional instances, the disputes that do find their way into court.
What would need to happen? First, Peters would probably need to find a lawyer. (In the United States
individuals can prosecute their cases themselves—in pro. per. or pro se, in the jargon of the law*—but most
consider lawyers worthwhile for litigation, in part because lawyers know their way around the procedural system.)
We’ll deal later, in Chapter 5, with how people in Peters’s situation might find a lawyer; this matters a good deal,
and because it does, it deserves more attention than it can get in this introduction.
But—even in this introduction—it bears emphasizing that the lawyer-client relationship involves two decisions
at the outset. First, Peters, the prospective client, must locate a lawyer. For clients like Peters, that can be a
bewildering process. Most individuals deal with lawyers quite infrequently, and therefore lack knowledge about
what qualities to look for. Rules of professional ethics allow lawyers to advertise, but only in a limited way, and we
have yet to develop a robust and reliable way of rating lawyers. So it’s likely that someone in Peters’s position
would have to rely on word-of-mouth recommendations: Did a friend or relative have a lawyer she would
recommend?
Suppose Peters does get such a recommendation and approaches Ursula Sands, a lawyer who practices in
Champaign, where the accident occurred and where Peters’s family lives. Further suppose that Sands’s practice
includes the kind of case Peters contemplates (as opposed, say, to a practice limited to wills or business
transactions). When he visits Sands’s office, the second decision must be made: Does Sands want to represent
Peters? Experienced lawyers will tell you that the most important decision they make in a lawsuit is whether to take
on a particular client. That initial decision derives its importance from the fact that professional rules prevent
lawyers from simply abandoning clients if they become unhappy with the progress of the case. So Sands wants to be
sure about at least two things before she takes on Peters as a client. First, she wants to know whether she can rely on
his truthfulness and candor. It’s a dreadful thing for a lawyer to discover, halfway through a case, that her client has
fabricated part of the story or has omitted critical facts. We will learn a bit more in Chapter 6 about an attorney’s
obligation to double check her client’s claims. Second, for reasons you’ll better understand after reading Chapter 5,
bounds it is up to Congress to decide the precise subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts. Congress has
enacted a number of statutes authorizing federal district courts (the trial courts of the federal system) to hear certain
kinds of cases. The most important statutes at this point in our exploration are 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1332(a).* Read
those two statutes and decide which might apply to Peters v. Dodge. Then read the following case. Does it tell
Peters’s lawyer whether she can file his claim in federal court?
The original set of Federal Rules became effective in 1938. The Supreme Court Justices did not write the
original Rules themselves nor do they now serve as the primary body considering amendments to the Rules. Instead,
as provided in 28 U.S.C. §§2073-2077, a series of committees, appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States
Supreme Court, do this work. So a Committee on Civil Rules, consisting of judges, lawyers, and a professor or two,
considers proposed amendments to the Rules. This group circulates proposed changes, holds public hearings, revises
the changes in light of the hearings, and submits the results to the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice,
Procedure, and Evidence, again with members from the bench and bar. The Standing Committee further considers
and refines the proposed amendments, passing them in turn to the Judicial Conference of the United States. The
Conference, consisting entirely of federal judges and presided over by the Chief Justice, is the senior administrative
body of the federal courts. Its tasks include everything from judicial discipline to assigning visiting judges,
approving requests for new courthouse buildings, and passing on proposed amendments to the Rules.
If the Conference approves a change, it passes the proposed Rule to the Supreme Court. With all these layers in
place, it may not be surprising to learn, first, that amending a Rule takes a long time, and, second, that the Court has
rarely rejected outright a Rules amendment, although on occasion individual Justices have dissented from the
promulgation of a proposed Rule.
Even after all these steps the proposed Rule still is not law. Under 28 U.S.C. §2074 the Court, if it too approves
the proposed change, must “transmit [it] to Congress not later than May 1 of the year in which such a rule…is to
become effective.” Congress has until December 1 to act: If it disagrees with a proposed change it can pass a statute
blocking or altering the proposed Rule. Congress has only on a very few occasions blocked or amended a Rule.
Since their promulgation in 1938 the Rules have undergone a number of revisions, some minor (adding a new
holiday to the list of days that do not “count” for time limits) and some major (creating the modern class action, a
change that some thought came close enough to being “substantive” that it violated the Rules Enabling Act).
One set of amendments deserves special note—the “restyling” amendments that took effect in 2007. Unlike
previous changes, these amendments purported to change procedures only in a very few instances. Indeed, the
committees that drafted and approved these changes reiterated that they did not intend changed language to result in
different outcomes. Instead, the changes were stylistic. The drafters believed that over time the Rules had become
stylistically unwieldy, containing “[d]ense, block paragraphs and lengthy sentences,…inconsistent words and terms,
…ambiguous words…[and] outdated and archaic terms and concepts.” November 2006 Letter of Transmittal of the
Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure. The revision sought to address all these concerns.
Because the legislative history makes it clear that the 2007 revisions are only stylistic, cases interpreting earlier
versions will presumably still be good law. (We leave aside for now the possibility that a court might decide that the
new language required a different result, whatever the legislative intent.) This casebook thus contains cases applying
the “unrestyled” versions of the Rules. Where such a case contains a citation to a Rule, and the Rule has since been
renumbered, a bracketed citation to the present location of the provision will appear. (An example of such
renumbering occurs in the part of Rule 11 limiting the conditions in which a court may impose monetary sanctions.
In the former Rule this provision appeared in Rule 11(c)(2); in the restyled version it appears in Rule 11(c)(5).)
Where the case quotes language from a Rule, and the language in the restyled Rules differs, the current language
will appear in brackets following the court’s quotation of the old language, occasionally with an explanatory
editorial footnote. (An example of such rewording, taken again from Rule 11, occurs in subsection (a). In the “old”
Rule, the second sentence began, “Each paper shall state the signer’s address.…” The restyled version begins, “The
paper must state the signer’s address.…” The changes presumably exemplify two principles of the restyling:
avoiding redundancy—because the first sentence of Rule 11 says that it applies to “every” paper, pleading, etc., the
drafters likely thought it unnecessary to restate this requirement in the second sentence; and stylistic consistency—
the restylers sought to eliminate “shall,” replacing it with “must,” to make the mandatory nature clearer.)
Finally, one should note that the Rules have had an influence far beyond the courts for which they were written.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
DANCE ON STILTS AT THE GIRLS’ UNYAGO, NIUCHI
I see increasing reason to believe that the view formed some time
back as to the origin of the Makonde bush is the correct one. I have
no doubt that it is not a natural product, but the result of human
occupation. Those parts of the high country where man—as a very
slight amount of practice enables the eye to perceive at once—has not
yet penetrated with axe and hoe, are still occupied by a splendid
timber forest quite able to sustain a comparison with our mixed
forests in Germany. But wherever man has once built his hut or tilled
his field, this horrible bush springs up. Every phase of this process
may be seen in the course of a couple of hours’ walk along the main
road. From the bush to right or left, one hears the sound of the axe—
not from one spot only, but from several directions at once. A few
steps further on, we can see what is taking place. The brush has been
cut down and piled up in heaps to the height of a yard or more,
between which the trunks of the large trees stand up like the last
pillars of a magnificent ruined building. These, too, present a
melancholy spectacle: the destructive Makonde have ringed them—
cut a broad strip of bark all round to ensure their dying off—and also
piled up pyramids of brush round them. Father and son, mother and
son-in-law, are chopping away perseveringly in the background—too
busy, almost, to look round at the white stranger, who usually excites
so much interest. If you pass by the same place a week later, the piles
of brushwood have disappeared and a thick layer of ashes has taken
the place of the green forest. The large trees stretch their
smouldering trunks and branches in dumb accusation to heaven—if
they have not already fallen and been more or less reduced to ashes,
perhaps only showing as a white stripe on the dark ground.
This work of destruction is carried out by the Makonde alike on the
virgin forest and on the bush which has sprung up on sites already
cultivated and deserted. In the second case they are saved the trouble
of burning the large trees, these being entirely absent in the
secondary bush.
After burning this piece of forest ground and loosening it with the
hoe, the native sows his corn and plants his vegetables. All over the
country, he goes in for bed-culture, which requires, and, in fact,
receives, the most careful attention. Weeds are nowhere tolerated in
the south of German East Africa. The crops may fail on the plains,
where droughts are frequent, but never on the plateau with its
abundant rains and heavy dews. Its fortunate inhabitants even have
the satisfaction of seeing the proud Wayao and Wamakua working
for them as labourers, driven by hunger to serve where they were
accustomed to rule.
But the light, sandy soil is soon exhausted, and would yield no
harvest the second year if cultivated twice running. This fact has
been familiar to the native for ages; consequently he provides in
time, and, while his crop is growing, prepares the next plot with axe
and firebrand. Next year he plants this with his various crops and
lets the first piece lie fallow. For a short time it remains waste and
desolate; then nature steps in to repair the destruction wrought by
man; a thousand new growths spring out of the exhausted soil, and
even the old stumps put forth fresh shoots. Next year the new growth
is up to one’s knees, and in a few years more it is that terrible,
impenetrable bush, which maintains its position till the black
occupier of the land has made the round of all the available sites and
come back to his starting point.
The Makonde are, body and soul, so to speak, one with this bush.
According to my Yao informants, indeed, their name means nothing
else but “bush people.” Their own tradition says that they have been
settled up here for a very long time, but to my surprise they laid great
stress on an original immigration. Their old homes were in the
south-east, near Mikindani and the mouth of the Rovuma, whence
their peaceful forefathers were driven by the continual raids of the
Sakalavas from Madagascar and the warlike Shirazis[47] of the coast,
to take refuge on the almost inaccessible plateau. I have studied
African ethnology for twenty years, but the fact that changes of
population in this apparently quiet and peaceable corner of the earth
could have been occasioned by outside enterprises taking place on
the high seas, was completely new to me. It is, no doubt, however,
correct.
The charming tribal legend of the Makonde—besides informing us
of other interesting matters—explains why they have to live in the
thickest of the bush and a long way from the edge of the plateau,
instead of making their permanent homes beside the purling brooks
and springs of the low country.
“The place where the tribe originated is Mahuta, on the southern
side of the plateau towards the Rovuma, where of old time there was
nothing but thick bush. Out of this bush came a man who never
washed himself or shaved his head, and who ate and drank but little.
He went out and made a human figure from the wood of a tree
growing in the open country, which he took home to his abode in the
bush and there set it upright. In the night this image came to life and
was a woman. The man and woman went down together to the
Rovuma to wash themselves. Here the woman gave birth to a still-
born child. They left that place and passed over the high land into the
valley of the Mbemkuru, where the woman had another child, which
was also born dead. Then they returned to the high bush country of
Mahuta, where the third child was born, which lived and grew up. In
course of time, the couple had many more children, and called
themselves Wamatanda. These were the ancestral stock of the
Makonde, also called Wamakonde,[48] i.e., aborigines. Their
forefather, the man from the bush, gave his children the command to
bury their dead upright, in memory of the mother of their race who
was cut out of wood and awoke to life when standing upright. He also
warned them against settling in the valleys and near large streams,
for sickness and death dwelt there. They were to make it a rule to
have their huts at least an hour’s walk from the nearest watering-
place; then their children would thrive and escape illness.”
The explanation of the name Makonde given by my informants is
somewhat different from that contained in the above legend, which I
extract from a little book (small, but packed with information), by
Pater Adams, entitled Lindi und sein Hinterland. Otherwise, my
results agree exactly with the statements of the legend. Washing?
Hapana—there is no such thing. Why should they do so? As it is, the
supply of water scarcely suffices for cooking and drinking; other
people do not wash, so why should the Makonde distinguish himself
by such needless eccentricity? As for shaving the head, the short,
woolly crop scarcely needs it,[49] so the second ancestral precept is
likewise easy enough to follow. Beyond this, however, there is
nothing ridiculous in the ancestor’s advice. I have obtained from
various local artists a fairly large number of figures carved in wood,
ranging from fifteen to twenty-three inches in height, and
representing women belonging to the great group of the Mavia,
Makonde, and Matambwe tribes. The carving is remarkably well
done and renders the female type with great accuracy, especially the
keloid ornamentation, to be described later on. As to the object and
meaning of their works the sculptors either could or (more probably)
would tell me nothing, and I was forced to content myself with the
scanty information vouchsafed by one man, who said that the figures
were merely intended to represent the nembo—the artificial
deformations of pelele, ear-discs, and keloids. The legend recorded
by Pater Adams places these figures in a new light. They must surely
be more than mere dolls; and we may even venture to assume that
they are—though the majority of present-day Makonde are probably
unaware of the fact—representations of the tribal ancestress.
The references in the legend to the descent from Mahuta to the
Rovuma, and to a journey across the highlands into the Mbekuru
valley, undoubtedly indicate the previous history of the tribe, the
travels of the ancestral pair typifying the migrations of their
descendants. The descent to the neighbouring Rovuma valley, with
its extraordinary fertility and great abundance of game, is intelligible
at a glance—but the crossing of the Lukuledi depression, the ascent
to the Rondo Plateau and the descent to the Mbemkuru, also lie
within the bounds of probability, for all these districts have exactly
the same character as the extreme south. Now, however, comes a
point of especial interest for our bacteriological age. The primitive
Makonde did not enjoy their lives in the marshy river-valleys.
Disease raged among them, and many died. It was only after they
had returned to their original home near Mahuta, that the health
conditions of these people improved. We are very apt to think of the
African as a stupid person whose ignorance of nature is only equalled
by his fear of it, and who looks on all mishaps as caused by evil
spirits and malignant natural powers. It is much more correct to
assume in this case that the people very early learnt to distinguish
districts infested with malaria from those where it is absent.
This knowledge is crystallized in the
ancestral warning against settling in the
valleys and near the great waters, the
dwelling-places of disease and death. At the
same time, for security against the hostile
Mavia south of the Rovuma, it was enacted
that every settlement must be not less than a
certain distance from the southern edge of the
plateau. Such in fact is their mode of life at the
present day. It is not such a bad one, and
certainly they are both safer and more
comfortable than the Makua, the recent
intruders from the south, who have made USUAL METHOD OF
good their footing on the western edge of the CLOSING HUT-DOOR
plateau, extending over a fairly wide belt of
country. Neither Makua nor Makonde show in their dwellings
anything of the size and comeliness of the Yao houses in the plain,
especially at Masasi, Chingulungulu and Zuza’s. Jumbe Chauro, a
Makonde hamlet not far from Newala, on the road to Mahuta, is the
most important settlement of the tribe I have yet seen, and has fairly
spacious huts. But how slovenly is their construction compared with
the palatial residences of the elephant-hunters living in the plain.
The roofs are still more untidy than in the general run of huts during
the dry season, the walls show here and there the scanty beginnings
or the lamentable remains of the mud plastering, and the interior is a
veritable dog-kennel; dirt, dust and disorder everywhere. A few huts
only show any attempt at division into rooms, and this consists
merely of very roughly-made bamboo partitions. In one point alone
have I noticed any indication of progress—in the method of fastening
the door. Houses all over the south are secured in a simple but
ingenious manner. The door consists of a set of stout pieces of wood
or bamboo, tied with bark-string to two cross-pieces, and moving in
two grooves round one of the door-posts, so as to open inwards. If
the owner wishes to leave home, he takes two logs as thick as a man’s
upper arm and about a yard long. One of these is placed obliquely
against the middle of the door from the inside, so as to form an angle
of from 60° to 75° with the ground. He then places the second piece
horizontally across the first, pressing it downward with all his might.
It is kept in place by two strong posts planted in the ground a few
inches inside the door. This fastening is absolutely safe, but of course
cannot be applied to both doors at once, otherwise how could the
owner leave or enter his house? I have not yet succeeded in finding
out how the back door is fastened.