Fountain v. Filson
Decision Date | 18 April 1949 |
Docket Number | No. 542,542 |
Citation | 69 S.Ct. 754,93 L.Ed. 971,336 U.S. 681 |
Parties | FOUNTAIN v. FILSON et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
See 337 U.S. 921, 69 S.Ct. 1153.
Mr. Charles A. Horsky, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Camden R. McAtee, of Washington, D.C., for respondents.
Mr. and Mrs. Filson brought this suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia, claiming a $6,000 interest in certain New Jersey realty. The complaint alleged that Mr. and Mrs. Fountain, the defendants, acquired title to this realty subject to a resulting trust in favor of the Filsons in that amount. The Fountains answered. They denied the existence of a resulting trust and also denied the existence of any obligation to the Filsons. The documents covering the transfer of the realty and certain depositions of the parties were filed. Mrs. Fountain, her husband having died, them moved for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. The sole basis of the motion was the claim that New Jersey law would not permit the imposition of a resulting trust under the circumstances disclosed in the complaint and the accompanying documents. The motion was granted and judgment for Mrs. Fountain was entered.
On appeal the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia came to three conclusions. First, it agreed that under New Jersey law no resulting trust could arise. Second, it concluded that the summary judgment in Mrs. Fountain's favor was nevertheless erroneous, because the complaint contained a general prayer for 'other relief' and alleged facts on the basis of which a personal judgment for $6,000 could have been recovered even in the absence of a resulting trust in the realty. Finally, the Court of Appeals proceeded to examine the depositions which had been taken in advance of trial. The court concluded that they showed the existence of a personal obligation and the case was, therefore, remanded to the District Court with instructions to enter a personal judgment in favor of the Filsons for $6,000. Mrs. Fountain's timely motion for a modification of this order in order to permit a trial as to the existence of the personal obligation was denied.
Mrs. Fountain's petition for certiorari, which attacks only the third portion of the Court of Appeals' ruling above stated, is granted and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. 171 F.2d 999. We need not pass on the propriety of an order for summary judgment by a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schmidt v. Villarreal (In re Oga Charters, LLC)
...any fact material to the issue being litigated," then granting summary judgment in favor of a non-movant is appropriate. Fountain v. Filson, 336 U.S. 681, 683 (1949). B. Insurance Policy, Related Proceeds, and the Bankruptcy Estate Under Fifth Circuit precedent, a debtor-owned insurance pol......
-
Eubanks v. Hale
...to present his side of a dispute, granting summary judgment for a non-moving party would be improper. E.g., Fountain v. Filson, 336 U.S. 681, 69 S.Ct. 754, 93 L.Ed. 971 (1949) (the circuit court improperly ordered summary judgment on a new issue for the nonmoving plaintiff where his opponen......
-
Ramirez de Arellano v. Weinberger
...of Starr, J., at 1567 n. 2) has never been the law in this Circuit, and certainly is not after our decision today.164 336 U.S. 681, 69 S.Ct. 754, 93 L.Ed. 971 (1949).165 Even Judge Tamm, in dissent, agrees that further factual development is required before drawing any legal conclusions on ......
-
Kreisner v. City of San Diego
...for issuing permits, and the parties had "an opportunity to dispute the facts material to that claim." Fountain v. Filson, 336 U.S. 681, 683, 69 S.Ct. 754, 756, 93 L.Ed. 971 (1949). Moreover, the issue is inextricably intertwined with the City's and the majority's free speech justification.......
-
28 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 50 Judgment As a Matter of Law In a Jury Trial; Related Motion For a New Trial; Conditional Ruling
...Globe Liquor Co., Inc. v. San Roman, 332 U.S. 571, 68 S.Ct. 246, 92 L.Ed. 177 (1948); Fountain v. Filson, 336 U.S. 681, 69 S.Ct. 754, 93 L.Ed. 971 (1949); Johnson v. New York, N.H. & H.R.R. Co., 344 U.S. 48, 73 S.Ct. 125, 97 L.Ed. 77 (1952). However, courts as well as counsel have often mis......