Nadell v. Nadell
| Decision Date | 21 May 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 1955.,1955. |
| Citation | 131 A.2d 921 |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Andree NADELL, Appellant, v. Louis NADELL, Appellee. |
Before ROVER, Chief Judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.
After being married less than six months, and while still occupying the same apartment with her husband, appellant sued him for separate maintenance.1 The case was tried one month after suit was filed and at the conclusion of appellant's evidence the trial court dismissed her complaint. For reasons hereafter stated, we must reverse and remand for a new trial.
At the close of appellant's evidence, appellee's counsel moved to dismiss "on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to make a prima facie case." In considering the motion and in referring to the evidence, the trial court stated that "the facts, as far as the case shows, * * * must be accepted in the light as being true aid correct at the present time," and after reviewing the evidence concluded that the motion should be granted. When asked by appellant's counsel as to the nature of its ruling the court replied: "It's a directed finding for the defendant."
So far it is evident that the trial court's ruling was that, accepting appellant's evidence in the light most favorable to her, such evidence did not entitle her to the relief sought. However, in entering its final judgment of dismissal the trial court made formal findings of fact and the making of findings of fact necessarily implies a weighing of the evidence and the drawing of inferences therefrom.
There is a vast difference between ruling at the close of a plaintiff's evidence that such evidence viewed most favorably to plaintiff does not entitle plaintiff to relief, and a ruling that on the facts found from plaintiff's evidence no relief is available. In the first instance, the situation is very similar to ruling on a motion for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff's evidence in a jury case. In the second instance, the court weighs the evidence in the same manner as if both sides had introduced evidence, draws proper inferences and renders a decision on the merits if it finds the evidence insufficient to make out a case for plaintiff.
The practice of making findings of fact at the close of plaintiff's case in nonjury actions is of fairly recent origin in the federal courts. Such practice is generally held to be authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, 41(b), 28 U.S.C.A. See Judge Stephens' opinion in United States v. United States Gypsum Co., D.C.D.C., 67 F.Supp. 397, reversed on other grounds, 333 U.S. 364, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746. See also the discussion of this subject in Howard Industries v. United States, 115 F. Supp. 481, 126 Ct.Cl. 283, 288. Cf. our decision in Taylor v. United Broadcasting Co., D.C.Mun.App., 61 A.2d 480.
The statute creating the Domestic Relations Branch...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keefer v. Keefer and Johnson, Inc, 9080.
...remanding for a new trial." Warner Corporation v. Magazine Realty Co., supra at 481 (citation omitted). See also Nadell v. Nadell, D.C.Mun.App., 131 A.2d 921 (1957); Kruger v. Purcell, 300 F.2d 830 (3d Cir. 1962); Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, supra at § 2577. In light ......
-
National Tire Dealers & Retread. Ass'n G. D. C. Corp., 2265.
...with the present federal rule, but the scope and effect of the amended rule has not been before us. However, in Nadell v. Nadel], D.C.Mun.App., 131 A.2d 921, we held that the Domestic Relations Branch of the Municipal Court has the power in a proper case to make findings of fact at the clos......
-
Ramos v. Ramos, 5766.
...v. Blankenship, D.C. Mun.App., 173 A.2d 737 (1961); and Carow v. Bishop, D.C.Mun.App., 50 A.2d 598 (1946). 3. But see Nadell v. Nadell, D.C.Mun.App., 131 A.2d 921 (1957). 4. 1 W. Nelson, Divorce and Annulment 376 (2d ed. 1945); Annot., 32 A.L.R.2d 107 at 127 5. See Hammond v. Hammond, 91 U.......
-
Hamilton v. Hamilton
...most favorably to plaintiff, but may weigh and draw inferences therefrom as if defendant had introduced evidence. Nadell v. Nadell, D.C. Mun.App., 131 A.2d 921. If this is done, we feel it incumbent on the court to make the findings of fact necessary to apprise the upper court of the basis ......