Jaffke v. Dunham, No. 60
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 352 U.S. 280,1 L.Ed.2d 314,77 S.Ct. 307 |
| Parties | Robert W. JAFFKE, Petitioner, v. William C. DUNHAM, Trustee of the Estate of Robert L. Knetzer, Bankrupt |
| Docket Number | No. 60 |
| Decision Date | 14 January 1957 |
v.
William C. DUNHAM, Trustee of the Estate of Robert L. Knetzer, Bankrupt.
Mr. Herbert J. Miller, Jr., Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. G. William Horsley, Springfield, Ill., for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
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
Page 281
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....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spaulding v. University of Washington, No. 82-3038
...failed to address the 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 We first consider the district court's jurisdiction over the section 1983 claim. The elev......
-
Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., Nos. 87-1497
...ante. An appellate tribunal is abjured to determine whether a jury verdict can be sustained, on any reasonable theory. Jaffke v. Dunham, 352 U.S. 280, 281, 77 S.Ct. 307, 308, 1 L.Ed.2d 314 (1957) ("A successful party in the District Court may sustain its judgment on any ground that finds su......
-
Sellers v. Regents of University of California, No. 23581.
...the judgment, 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. ......
-
Getty v. Reed, Nos. 76-1633
...not prevent our affirming his result as a matter of law on grounds of insubstantiality of the due process claims. See Jaffke v. Dunham, 352 U.S. 280, 77 S.Ct. 307, 1 L.Ed.2d 314 (1957); J. E. Riley Investment Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 311 U.S. 55, 61 S.Ct. 95, 85 L.Ed. 36 (19......
-
Spaulding v. University of Washington, No. 82-3038
...failed to address the 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 We first consider the district court's jurisdiction over the section 1983 claim. The elev......
-
Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., Nos. 87-1497
...ante. An appellate tribunal is abjured to determine whether a jury verdict can be sustained, on any reasonable theory. Jaffke v. Dunham, 352 U.S. 280, 281, 77 S.Ct. 307, 308, 1 L.Ed.2d 314 (1957) ("A successful party in the District Court may sustain its judgment on any ground that finds su......
-
Sellers v. Regents of University of California, No. 23581.
...the judgment, 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. ......
-
Getty v. Reed, Nos. 76-1633
...not prevent our affirming his result as a matter of law on grounds of insubstantiality of the due process claims. See Jaffke v. Dunham, 352 U.S. 280, 77 S.Ct. 307, 1 L.Ed.2d 314 (1957); J. E. Riley Investment Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 311 U.S. 55, 61 S.Ct. 95, 85 L.Ed. 36 (19......