Fletcher v. Nostadt, 6596-6598.
| Citation | 205 F.2d 896 |
| Decision Date | 09 July 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 6596-6598.,6596-6598. |
| Parties | FLETCHER v. NOSTADT. FLETCHER v. FLOURNOY. FLETCHER v. FITZWATER et ux. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) |
Edmond C. Fletcher, pro se.
John S. Stanley, D. Heyward Hamilton, Jr., and Hershey, Donaldson, Williams & Stanley, Baltimore, Md., on brief, for appellees, Flournoy and Fitzwater.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
These are appeals in three actions of ejectment in which summary judgments were entered for defendants in the court below, in application of the principle of res judicata, when defendants produced certified transcripts of the records and judgment rolls of proceedings had in Maryland state courts involving the same parties and the same property. The nature of the controversy is shown by the opinion of the Court of Appeals of Maryland in the Flournoy case, Fletcher v. Flournoy, 81 A.2d 232, certiorari denied 343 U.S. 917, 72 S.Ct. 649, 96 L.Ed. 1331. The plaintiff was unquestionably concluded by the judgments entered in the state courts and nothing need be added to the opinion of Judge Chesnut to that effect filed in the Flournoy and Nostadt cases, which is adopted as the opinion of this court. See also Ellis v. Cates, 4 Cir., 178 F.2d 791; Tibbals v. Mica Mountain Mines, 10 Cir., 172 F.2d 449; Fletcher v. Krise, 4 Cir., 138 F.2d 740.
There was no irregularity in the entry of the summary judgments. In the Nostadt case, defendant in answering pleaded res judicata but attached an incomplete copy of the judgment roll and proceedings of the state court to the answer. A motion by plaintiff to strike this allegation was allowed. Defendant then filed a motion for summary judgment accompanied by an affidavit which was subsequently amended by attaching thereto a complete exemplified copy of the entire record in the state court. As it was within the power of the court to allow amendment of the pleadings at any time, there was nothing improper in treating them as amended by the allegations of the affidavit filed in support of the motion for summary judgment. In the Flournoy and Fitzwater cases, motions for summary judgments, made prior to the filing of answer and supported by affidavits to which were attached partial records of the proceedings in the state courts, were overruled by the trial judge and permission was given defendants to answer. Defendants then answered, pleading the proceedings in the state courts as res judicata and presenting certified copies of the judgment rolls and proceedings in the state court cases, and moved for judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Overseas Motors, Inc. v. Import Motors Limited, Inc.
...1972). 25 Harrison v. Thompson, 447 F.2d 459 (5th Cir. 1971); Miller v. Shell Oil Co., 345 F.2d 891 (10th Cir. 1965); Fletcher v. Nostadt, 205 F.2d 896 (4th Cir. 1953), cert. denied, 346 U.S. 877, 74 S.Ct. 126, 98 L.Ed. 385. See also Annot., 95 A.L.R.2d 648, §§ 2-3 (1964). See generally 2A ......
-
Ryan v. Scoggin
...to and not excluded by the court, the motion was thereupon and thereafter to be treated as one for summary judgment. Fletcher v. Nostadt, 4 Cir., 205 F.2d 896, certiorari denied 346 U.S. 877, 74 S.Ct. 126, 98 L. Ed. With the complaint, the motion for summary judgment, and the certified copy......
-
Maicobo Investment Corporation v. Von Der Heide
... ... -------- Notes: 1 Fletcher v. Flournoy, D.Md., 113 F.Supp. 727 (1952), aff'd 4 Cir., 205 F.2d 896 (1953). See also Brack v ... ...
-
Kulkarni v. Alexander
...if they had been raised in the pleadings." This general principle has been applied to motions for summary judgment. See Fletcher v. Nostadt, 205 F.2d 896, 897 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 346 U.S. 877, 74 S.Ct. 126, 98 L.Ed. 385 (1953); Hayes v. Philadelphia Transp. Co., 312 F.2d 522, 523 (3d ......