concurring.
I am of opinion that timely application to the circuit court of appeals for leave to .appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, and that the practice followed in this case cannot be reduced to a mere procedural irregularity. Farrar v. Churchill, 135 U. S. 609, 612-13; Old Nick Williams Co. v. United States, 215 U. S. 541; Shulman v. Wilson-Sheridan Hotel Co., 301 U. S. 172. However, when petitioners filed their notices of appeal in the -district court the proper procedure was not' settled, and petitioners were misled by the decision of the court below in London v. O’Dougherty, 102 F. 2d 524. In these unique circumstances I think that reversal of the judgment is justified by our broad power to make such disposition of the case as justice requires. Watts, Watts & Co. v. Unione Austriaca, 248 U. S. 9, 21; Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan, 311 U. S. 243, 254-255. In rare instances such as the case at bar this power is.appropri-até for curing e^en jurisdictional defects. Cf. Rorick v. Commissioners, 307 U. S. 208, 213.
Mr. Justice Roberts joins in this opinion.