Seaboard Surety Co. v. Permacrete Const. Corp.
| Decision Date | 19 May 1952 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 12813. |
| Parties | SEABOARD SURETY CO. v. PERMACRETE CONST. CORP. et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Daniel Mungall, Jr., of Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
Harry Norman Ball and Morris L. Weisberg, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants Thomas B. Smith Co. and Davis P. Smith.
The complaint in this case alleges that Smith, as part of a conspiracy in which he and the other defendants all participated, transmitted to the plaintiff certain documents relating to the financial situation of Permacrete, and also made certain false representations to the plaintiff concerning Permacrete's finances, that the plaintiff, relying upon the documents and representations, bonded Permacrete's building operation, and that the plaintiff suffered loss in consequence. In support of this motion for summary judgment, Smith (for himself and his company) has filed an affidavit not denying that he delivered the documents in question but stating that he acted in the transaction as an innocent agent for Permacrete, and asserting that he had no knowledge or information at the time which would lead him to believe that the documents did not correctly reflect Permacrete's financial position and that he made no representations of any kind.
The complaint and answer raise the issue of Smith's participation in the alleged fraud, which in the light of the argument might be narrowed to whether or not he knew that a sum of $160,000 which Permacrete had in the bank was borrowed money and was not capital or surplus, as represented. This is certainly a material issue of fact and I do not see how the defendant can remove it from the case by filing an affidavit which is, actually, no more than an amplification of the denials contained in his answer, with emphasis. There may be cases in which, on a motion for summary judgment, the answering party is required to come forward with counter affidavits or other proof, as where the moving party, by affidavit, raises a new issue outside the scope of the complaint — a release, for example — by way of avoidance, but this is not one of them. The rule, Fed.Rules Civ. Proc. rule 56(c), 28 U.S.C., specifically requires that the "pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits" must show that there is no genuine issue. "An affidavit cannot be treated, for purposes of the motion to dismiss, as proof contradictory to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dovberg v. Dow Chemical Company
...Knitting Mills, D.C., 86 F.Supp. 506; Sanson Hosiery Mills v. Signature Hosiery Co., D.C., 94 F.Supp. 32; Seaboard Surety Co. v. Permacrete Const. Corp., D.C., 105 F.Supp. 349; Moerr Motor Freight v. Eastern R. R. Presidents Conference, D.C., 113 F.Supp. 737; Duffield v. United States, D.C.......
-
Professional Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Roussel
...laws (Ferguson v. Omnimedia, Inc., 469 F.2d 194, 198 (1st Cir. 1972)), conspiracies to commit fraud (Seaboard Surety Co. v. Permacrete Const. Corp., 105 F.Supp. 349, 350 (E.D.Pa.1952)), and claims of inducement to breach a contract (Savarin Corp. v. National Bank of Pakistan, 290 F.Supp. 28......
- Mueller v. Powell
-
Ballard v. Markey
...showing there was no genuine issue of material fact for trial, Michelson v. House, 54 N.M. 197, 218 P.2d 861; Seaboard Surety Co. v. Permacrete Const. Corp., D.C., 105 F.Supp. 349; Albert Dickinson Co. v. Mellos Peanut Co. of Illinois, Inc., 7 Cir., 179 F.2d 265, and it is clear from a cons......