concurring.
In a conscientious effort to do justice the District Court deferred immediate adjudication of this controversy pending authoritative • clarification of a controlling state statute of highly doubtful meaning. Under the circumstances presented, I think the course pursued was clearly within the District Court’s allowable discretion. For that reason' I concur in the judgment:
This case is totally unlike County of Allegheny v. Mashuda Co., decided today, post, p. 185, except for the coincidence that both cases involve eminent domain proceedings. In Mashuda the.-Court holds that it was error for the District Court to dismiss the complaint. The Court further holds in that case that, since the controlling state law. is clear and oníy factual issues need be resolved, there is no occasion in the interest of justice to refrain from prompt adjudication.