Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Marcum, 788.

Decision Date25 January 1951
Docket NumberNo. 788.,788.
Citation100 F. Supp. 953
PartiesRECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP. v. MARCUM.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

Charles M. Lee, Sidney B. McClanahan, St. Louis, for plaintiff.

Gene Frost, Joplin, Mo., for defendant.

RIDGE, District Judge.

From the allegations contained in defendant's answer, it appears that each and every fact essential to plaintiff's right to recover, on each count of the complaint herein, is admitted, or deemed to be admitted for failure of defendant to make response thereto, and that plaintiff is entitled to have judgment entered in its favor, unless the claims asserted in the several counts of the complaint are subject to the bar created by Section 1013, R.S.Mo.1939, R.S. Mo.1949, § 516.110. The averments contained in the first four paragraphs of the complaint are specifically admitted in the answer. Defendant makes no response to the averments contained in paragraph five of the complaint. Failing to make any response or denial thereof in his answer, the same are also deemed admitted under Rule 8(d) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.

The Plaintiff, Reconstruction Finance Corporation, is a governmental agency created by Act of Congress, 15 U.S.C.A. § 601 et seq., and, as such, acts in a sovereign capacity. Inland Waterways Corp. v. Young, 309 U.S. 517, 60 S.Ct. 646, 84 L.Ed. 901; U. S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 275 U.S. 415, 48 S.Ct. 198, 72 L.Ed. 345. Therefore, state statutes of limitation putting a time limit upon enforcement of obligations due private persons are not binding on the Reconstruction Finance Corporation any more than they are binding upon the Government unless Congress has manifested an intention that they should be applicable. U. S. v. Summerlin, 310 U.S. 414, 60 S.Ct. 1019, 84 L.Ed. 1283; E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. v. Davis, 264 U.S. 456, 44 S.Ct. 364, 68 L.Ed. 788. No Act of Congress exists making the Reconstruction Finance Corporation subject to local statutes of limitation. Consequently, the only affirmative defense here attempted to be asserted against plaintiff's right of recovery on each count of the complaint is shown to be an invalid one as a matter of law. Therefore, it appears that no genuine issue of fact remains in issue between the parties herein, and that plaintiff is entitled to have judgment entered in its favor, against defendant, on each count of the complaint.

Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is accordingly...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • United States v. New York Dock Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • August 2, 1951
    ... ... Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which in turn is wholly owned by the ... Defense Supplies Corp. v. United States Lines Co., 2 Cir., 148 F.2d 311; Inland ... Marcum, decided on January 25, 1951, D.C.W.D.Mo., 100 F.Supp. 953 ... v. Davis, 264 U.S. 456, 44 S.Ct. 364, 68 L.Ed. 788 ...         There is some language in Board of ... ...
  • R. F. C. v. Faulkner
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • April 27, 1956
    ...354, 34 A.L.R.2d 996; See annotation 34 A.L.R.2d 1004, 1005. The RFC being an agency of the federal government, Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Marcum, D.C., 100 F.Supp. 953, enjoys this same privilege unless Congress in creating it has manifested a contrary intention. Lewis v. Moore, 10 Ci......
  • Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. TUOLUMNE GOLD D. CORP., 6192.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • June 5, 1953
    ...the applicability of state statutes of limitations to the present plaintiff or one of its subsidiaries. In Reconstruction Finance Corporation v. Marcum, D.C.Mo.1951, 100 F. Supp. 953, the court squarely held that "state statutes of limitation putting a time limit upon enforcement of obligat......
  • Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. McCarthy Bros., 32695.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • November 24, 1953
    ...say that I agree with that decision. See also United States v. New York Dock Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y.1951, 100 F.Supp. 303 and R.F.C. v. Marcum, D.C.W.D.Mo.1951, 100 F.Supp. 953. The motion for summary judgment is 1 Keifer & Keifer v. R. F. C., 1939, 306 U.S. 381, 59 S.Ct. 516, 83 L.Ed. 784; Bauma......
  • 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