opinion: GIBSON v. LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT SERVICE, INC.
  No. 42.
  Argued December 5-6, 1955.
  Decided February 27, 1956.
  G. C. Spillers, Jr. argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were G. C. Spillers and Edward C. Fritz.
  Emory A. Cantey argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were R. K. Hanger and David O. Belew, Jr.
  Per Curiam.
  Petitioner Gibson recovered judgment in a personal injuries action against the Lockheed Company in a United States District Court. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for a new trial on the ground that four instructions requested by Lockheed and refused by the trial court should have been given. 217 F. 2d 730. We granted certiorari, 349 U. S. 943, to consider the following questions:
  (1) Whether Lockheed's objection to the trial court’s refusal to give its requested instructions complied with Rule 51 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
  (2) Whether the refusal of the trial court to charge as requested by respondent Lockheed was prejudicial error requiring reversal.
  A thorough consideration of the record convinces us that the charge as given by the trial court was both complete and correct. Cf. District of Columbia v. Woodbury, 136 U. S. 450, 466. There was no error in refusing the requested instructions. We consider this to be a case where, in the exercise of our supervisory powers over the lower federal courts, the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed in the interests of justice, and that of the District Court reinstated. Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to consider the question presented as to Rule 51.
  Reversed.