Hatfield v. Barnes
| Decision Date | 29 April 1946 |
| Docket Number | 15689. |
| Parties | HATFIELD et al. v. BARNES et al. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to County Court, City and County of Denver; Christian D Stoner, Judge.
Action in unlawful detainer by Fred G. Barnes and another against Patricia Ann Hatfield and another to recover possession of an apartment occupied by defendants as tenants from month to month. To review a summary judgment for possession in favor of plaintiff, defendant bring error. On application for a supersedeas.
Judgment reversed.
Harry S. Class, of Denver, for plaintiffs in error.
Donald M. Shere and Isadore R. Schwartz, both of Denver, for defendants in error.
Defendants in error Barnes brought action in unlawful detainer in the justice court to recover possession of an apartment in a house which was occupied by plaintiffs in error Hatfield as tenants from month to month. We shall refer to the parties as they appeared in the court below.
The complaint and notice alleged, as required by regulation of the office of Price Administration adopted pursuant to provisions of the Emergency Price Control Act, 50 U.S C.A.Appendix § 901 et seq., that 'The landlord owned or acquired an enforceable right to buy or the right to possession of the housing accommodations prior to October 20 1942, and seeks in good faith to recover possession of such accommodations for immediate use and occupancy as a dwelling for himself.' Defendants in their answer, on information and belief, denied plaintiffs' ownership and alleged ownership in another. They also denied that plaintiffs sought in good faith to recover possession, and denied that they were seeking to recover possession for the use or occupancy of the premises for themselves, and as affirmative defenses alleged, inter alia, that plaintiffs had been owners and in possession of other premises for many years which were occupied by them as a dwelling house; that the allegations in the complaint wherein it was claimed plaintiffs sought possession of the premises as a dwelling house for themselves were untrue, and that the real intent of plaintiffs in demanding possession was to convert the apartment into a lodginghouse or rooming house or apartments in order to obtain increased rental therefrom. Other defense asserted in the answer need not be considered.
After hearing, and judgment for plaintiffs in the justice court, defendants appealed to the county court and they were there served with written interrogatories asking particularly upon what information they were informed that plaintiffs were not the owners, and upon what facts they relied to prove the above mentioned allegations of their answer. Upon answer made to the interrogatories, plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment supported by affidavits denying the facts alleged in the answers to the interrogatories, and abain declaring that they in good faith sought to recover possession of the premises as a dwelling house and for no ulterior purpose. This motion was sustained and judgment for possession entered.
Under our rule 56, following the federal practice, summary judgment is a drastic remedy and is never warranted except on clear showing that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Shultz v. Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co., D.C. 1 F.R.D. 451; Id., 2 Cir., 103 F.2d 771. It does not compel a party to try his case on affidavits with no opportunity to cross-examine affiants. United States v. Newbury Mfg. Company, D.C.Mass., 1 F.R.D. 718. To authorize the granting of summary judgment the compete absence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State, Dept. of Natural Resources, Div. of Water Resources, State Engineer v. Southwestern Colorado Water Conservation Dist.
...information to support the trial court's ruling that the class I claims are infeasible and speculative. See, e.g., Hatfield v. Barnes, 115 Colo. 30, 168 P.2d 552 (1946) (motion for summary judgment should be denied if a genuine issue of fact is apparent); cf. Bunger v. Uncompahgre Valley Wa......
-
Gleason v. Guzman
...v. Hamilton, 168 Colo. 524, 452 P.2d 375 (1969); Flanders v. Kochenberger, 118 Colo. 104, 193 P.2d 281 (1944); Hatfield v. Barnes, 115 Colo. 30, 168 P.2d 552 (1946). Having due regard for these stringent standards of review and after careful consideration of the record before us, we reject ......
-
Hargreaves v. Skrbina, 79CA0244
...opinion written by Judge Coyte but I add some thoughts of my own in support of that opinion. The dissent relies upon Hatfield v. Barnes, 115 Colo. 30, 168 P.2d 552 (1946), in support of the proposition that a finding of good faith is a finding of fact which this court may not disturb. And, ......
-
Dominguez v. Babcock
...Vlasaty, 4 Hawaii App. 556, 670 P.2d 827; Buckley, 57 N.Y.2d 516, 457 N.Y.S.2d 221, 443 N.E.2d 469. Dominguez, citing Hatfield v. Barnes, 115 Colo. 30, 168 P.2d 552 (1946), asserts that the defendants' affidavits stating that the September 4 memorandum was the product of either personal kno......