153 F.2d 1 (10th Cir. 1946), 3188, Schreffler v. Bowles

Docket Nº:3188.
Citation:153 F.2d 1
Party Name:SCHREFFLER et al. v. BOWLES.
Case Date:January 12, 1946
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Page 1

153 F.2d 1 (10th Cir. 1946)




No. 3188.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

January 12, 1946

         Rehearing Denied Feb. 23, 1946.

Page 2

         Byron G. Rogers and Frank A. Bruno, both of Denver, Colo. (W. David McClain, of Denver, Colo., on the brief), for appellants.

         Albert Dreyer, of Washington, D.C. (George Moncharsh, David London, and Samuel Rosenwein, all of Washington, D.C., and Max D. Melville and Henry E. Lutz, both of Denver, Colo., on the brief), for appellee.

         Before PHILLIPS, HUXMAN and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.

         HUXMAN, Circuit Judge.

         Pursuant to Section 205(e) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, 1 appellee, as Price Administrator of the Office of Price Administration, instituted an action against appellants for treble damages for alleged violations of Revised Price Regulation No. 49, as amended, in the alleged purchase and resale of steel products. An amended complaint was filed which had attached to it Exhibit A. This exhibit contained an itemized list of sales, names of purchasers, purchase order numbers, dates of shipments, invoice numbers, net cost to the purchasers, allowable cost to purchasers, and the amount of the claimed overcharges on each item and the total amount of overcharges for which judgment was

Page 3

sought. All the statistical data of the exhibit was taken from appellants' books. Appellants filed an answer containing nine separate defenses, including a general denial. Appellee thereupon moved for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.following section 723c. The verified motion for summary judgment alleged that the answer raised no genuine issue as to any material facts and that the defenses set out therein were fictitious and frivolous. In support of the motion, appellee filed the affidavits of its two agents who examined appellants' books and prepared the schedules set out in Exhibit A. The substance of the affidavits was that the items set out in Exhibit A were taken from appellants' books and that the exhibit correctly reflected what appeared on appellants' records. The motion for summary judgment was sustained and judgment was entered for the actual amount of the overcharges. Appellants have appealed. The only question presented is whether the trial court erred in sustaining the motion for summary judgment.

         The salutary purpose of Rule 56 is to permit speedy and expeditious disposal of cases where the pleadings do not as a matter of fact present any substantial question for determination. Flimsy or transparent charges or allegations are insufficient to sustain a justiciable controversy requiring the submission thereof. 2 The purpose of the rule is to permit the trier to pierce formal allegations of facts in pleadings and grant relief by summary judgment when it appears from uncontroverted facts set forth in affidavits, depositions or admissions on file that there are as a matter of fact no genuine issues for trial. 3

         The overcharges set out in the complaint, which are the basis of the trial court's judgment, were the result of calculations and computations taken from appellants' own books and records which they were required to keep under the Act. These records...

To continue reading