Trentman v. City and County of Denver, Colo., 5208
| Citation | 236 F.2d 951 |
| Decision Date | 27 August 1956 |
| Docket Number | 5209.,No. 5208,5208 |
| Parties | John L. TRENTMAN, Harry C. Trentman, and Aubrey Milner, a co-partnership, Appellants, v. The CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO, a municipal corporation; Board of Water Commissioners of the City and County of Denver, Colorado; George R. Morrison, August P. Gumlick, Nicholas R. Petry, Hudson Moore, Jr., and Robert S. Kohn, members of the Board of Water Commissioners of the City and County of Denver, Colorado; and Sam H. Schaefer, Appellees. Sam H. SCHAEFER, Cross-Appellant, v. John L. TRENTMAN, Harry C. Trentman, and Aubrey Milner, a co-partnership, Cross-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
Bernard E. Engler, Denver, Colo. (Barkley L. Clanahan, Denver, Colo., on the brief), for appellants and cross-appellees John L. Trentman, Harry C. Trentman, and Aubrey Milner.
John C. Banks, Denver, Colo., for appellee and cross-appellee City and County of Denver.
Willard S. Snyder, Denver, Colo. (Glenn G. Saunders, Denver, Colo., on the brief), for appellees and cross-appellees Board of Water Com'rs of City and County of Denver; George R. Morrison, August P. Gumlick, Nicholas R. Petry, Hudson Moore, Jr., and Robert S. Kohn, members of Board of Water Commissioners.
Allen A. Schaefer, Denver, Colo. (Darwin D. Coit, Denver, Colo., on the brief), for appellee and cross-appellant Sam H. Schaefer.
Before BRATTON, Chief Judge, PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge, and ROGERS, District Judge.
The disputation in this action revolves around two water systems consisting of tanks, pumps, pipe, service lines, valves, fittings, meters, and other equipment, installed for the purpose of supplying water to the inhabitants of certain subdivisions adjacent to the City and County of Denver, Colorado. John L. Trentman, Harry C. Trentman, and Aubrey Milner, a co-partnership, instituted the action against the City and County of Denver, the Board of Water Commissioners of the city and county, and the members of the board. The amended complaint was in three counts. The first count charged the wrongful conversion of the Bel-Adams Water System. The second count charged like conversion of the Schaefer Water System. And the third count was for an accounting for sums received from consumers of water after the conversion charged in the first and second counts. By third-party complaint, Sam H. Schaefer was made a third-party defendant. The defendants and the third-party defendant denied liability and interposed affirmative pleas. And by counter-claim and cross-claim, the third party defendant sought affirmative relief. The court entered judgment determining among other things that the plaintiffs take nothing upon the amended complaint and that the third-party defendant take nothing on the counterclaim and cross-claim. Plaintiffs and the third-party defendant perfected separate appeals.
The judgment is attacked upon the ground that the court failed to make sufficient findings of fact. Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), 28 U.S.C.A., provides in presently material part that the court shall find the facts specially and shall state separately its conclusions of law thereon; and that if an opinion or memorandum of decision is filed, it suffices if the findings of fact and conclusions of law appear therein. Under the clear command of the rule, it is the duty of the court to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law. This may be done by dictating into the record findings of fact and conclusions of law; by filing in the case written findings of fact and conclusions of law; or by including findings of fact and conclusions of law in the opinion or memorandum decision of the court. The rule does not require the making of elaborate findings of fact extending into minute and unnecessary detail in respect to every feature or phase of the case. The exaction of the rule is met in full measure if the findings of fact cover in clear, definite, and concise language the contested issue or issues in the case. Life Savers Corp. v. Curtiss Candy Co., 7 Cir., 182 F.2d 4. The court did not dictate into the record findings of fact and conclusions of law. Neither did it file formal written findings of fact and conclusions of law. But the court did file a written opinion which contained findings of fact and conclusions of law. And while the opinion may not have been as complete as might have been desired in respect to the making of findings of fact, we think it is wholly unnecessary to remand the case for the making of additional findings.
The court found among other things that prior to the time of the alleged conversion plaintiffs had more than received back the amount which they invested in the installation of the two water systems. The finding was in the form of a footnote to the opinion of the court, but it was in substance a finding of fact and must be considered as such. Plaintiffs were developers of subdivisions. Their business was that of subdividing tracts of land and selling the lots to the public for down payments in cash and periodic payments in cash thereafter until the purchase price was paid in full. They subdivided certain tracts of land adjacent to the City and County of Denver and sold lots for small down payments and small payments from time to time thereafter. And the two water systems were installed to furnish a supply of water to the purchasers of lots and other inhabitants of the subdivisions. In all but one or perhaps two of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crownhill Homes, Inc. v. City of San Antonio
...the city and county liable in damages for conversion. * * *' Trentman v. City and County of Denver, Colorado, 129 F.Supp. 624; 10 Cir., 236 F.2d 951. Finally, appellant argues that it has been denied substantive due process and equal protection of the law in violation of the state and feder......
-
Featherstone v. Barash, 7804.
...is no issue as to their justification or basis, a general finding of reasonable value is quite usual. 14 Trentman v. City and County of Denver, Colo., 236 F.2d 951 (10th Cir. 1956); see also Woods Construction Co. v. Pool Construction Co., 314 F.2d 405 (10th Cir. 1963), supra. 15 United Sta......
-
Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs
...findings of fact, we think it is wholly unnecessary to remand the case for the making of additional findings.Trentman v. City and County of Denver, 236 F.2d 951, 953 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 943, 77 S.Ct. 265, 1 L.Ed.2d 239 ...
-
Stegall v. City of Jackson
...by it from property owners in the city.' In the case of Trentman v. City and County of Denver, Colorado, D.C., 129 F.Supp. 624; 10 Cir., 236 F.2d 951; 352 U.S. 943, 77 S.Ct. 265, 1 L.Ed.2d 239, the city annexed areas where there was already in existence a privately built and operated water ......
-
CHAPTER 4 UNIT AGREEMENTS—HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE AND THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS
...citing Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560 (1975) and Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138 (1973). See also Trentman v. City of County of Denver, 236 F.2d 951 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 943 (1956). [47] Judge McKay also disagrees with the majority's holding that forces the Department to relat......
-
Subdivision Improvement Requirements and Guarantees in Colorado
...and 31-23-214. 2. See, e.g., CRS § 30-28-133(3)(b)(VII). 3. See, e.g., CRS § 30-28-101(11). 4. Trentman v. City and County of Denver, 236 F.2d 951 (10th Cir. 1956). 5. Id. 6. Id. at 954. 7. See, Johnston, "Constitutionality of Subdivision Control Exactions: The Quest for a Rationale," 52 Co......