Jaffke v. Dunham

Decision Date14 January 1957
Docket NumberNo. 60,60
Citation352 U.S. 280,1 L.Ed.2d 314,77 S.Ct. 307
PartiesRobert W. JAFFKE, Petitioner, v. William C. DUNHAM, Trustee of the Estate of Robert L. Knetzer, Bankrupt
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Herbert J. Miller, Jr., Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Mr. G. William Horsley, Springfield, Ill., for respondent.


We granted certiorari in this case to review a judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 229 F.2d 232, reversing an order of the District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, sitting in bankruptcy, which required respondent as trustee of a bankrupt's estate to pay $27,400 to petitioner. 351 U.S. 949, 76 S.Ct. 847. The District Court's order was based on a finding that, subsequent to the date of the adjudication of bankruptcy, the bankrupt had obtained money by fraud from the petitioner and had turned over $27,400 of that money to respondent. At the hearing before the District Court, petitioner had sought to introduce into evidence an affidavit in which the bankrupt stated that he had paid $36,000 of the money he had received from petitioner to the respondent. At the conclusion of the hearing, the District Court sustained respondent's motion to strike the affidavit.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that petitioner had failed to prove that any specific portion of the money that he had given the bankrupt became a part of the funds in the hands of respondent. Because petitioner had not cross-appealed, the Court of Appeals held that it could not consider the action of the District Court in striking the bankrupt's affidavit from the record.

A successful party in the District Court may sustain its judgment on any ground that finds support in the record. If the District Court was in error in striking an admissible affidavit, a cross-appeal was not a prerequisite for the Court of Appeals to rule on the admissibility of the affidavit, and finding it admissible, to find that it afforded evidence in support of the District Court judgment. United States v. American Railway Express Co., 265 U.S. 425, 435—436, 44 S.Ct. 560, 563—564, 68 L.Ed. 1087; Langnes v. Green, 282 U.S. 531, 538—539, 51 S.Ct. 243, 246, 75 L.Ed. 520. Since the Court of Appeals did not consider the admissibility and weight of the affidavit, we remand to the Court of Appeals for its consideration of those issues.

The claim in this case is that relevant, admissible evidence established a constructive trust. Whether it did so or not is a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
181 cases
  • Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, Denver, Colo., Nos. 74-1349
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • September 16, 1975
    ...record, even where the lower court reached its conclusions from a different or even erroneous course of reasoning. Jaffke v. Dunham, 352 U.S. 280, 77 S.Ct. 307, 1 L.Ed.2d 314. The School Board next argues that because the trial court proceeded from an incorrect view of the issues on remand,......
  • Spaulding v. University of Washington
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • November 26, 1984
    ...issue of its jurisdiction, we may affirm its decision on any basis supported by the record. E.g., Jaffke v. Dunham, 352 U.S. 280, 281, 77 S.Ct. 307, 308, 1 L.Ed.2d 314 (1957) (per curiam). We first consider the district court's jurisdiction over the section 1983 claim. The eleventh amendmen......
  • Sellers v. Regents of University of California
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • September 17, 1970
    ...although not necessarily on the grounds on which the lower court relied. This is our prerogative. Jaffke v. Dunham, Trustee, 352 U.S. 280, 281, 77 S.Ct. 307, 1 L.Ed.2d 314 (1957); M.O.S. Corp. v. John I. Haas Co., 375 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1967); Rizal Commercial Banking v. Putnam, 429 F.......
  • Jacobson v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • August 5, 1977
    ...Law on Eminent Domain § 6.3 (1976). 17 This court may affirm on any ground squarely presented on the record. Jaffke v. Dunham, 352 U.S. 280, 281, 77 S.Ct. 307, 1 L.Ed.2d 314 (1957); M.O.S. Corp. v. John I. Haas Co., 375 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 18 The Eleventh Amendment provides: "The Judici......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT