United States v. Blumenthal, 14247.
| Decision Date | 20 March 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 14247.,14247. |
| Citation | 315 F.2d 351 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Harvey BLUMENTHAL, Doing Business as Harvey Peters, Ltd., Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
William W. Bailey, Bailey & Wood, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, for appellant.
Alexander A. Farrelly, Asst. U. S. Atty. Charlotte Amalie, Virgin Islands, for appellee.
Before MARIS, WOODBURY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
Argued at Christiansted January 28, 1963.
The defendant appeals from a judgment of the District Court of the Virgin Islands granting the plaintiff restitution of a parcel of real estate in St. Thomas known as Building No. 112-2-1, Bourne Field, which the defendant has occupied as a tenant of the plaintiff, and awarding the plaintiff damages for the detention of the premises. The judgment was entered on motion of the plaintiff. While this motion was entitled a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties did not rely on depositions, admissions or affidavits, but solely on the pleadings. It was, therefore, in reality a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) and we will so regard it.
In considering such a motion by the plaintiff for judgment on the pleadings the question for determination is whether on the undenied facts alleged in the complaint and assuming as true all the material allegations of fact in the answer, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 2 Moore's Federal Practice p. 2269. Or, to put it another way, the question is whether the facts alleged in the answer are material in the sense that, if proved, they will constitute a legal defense to the plaintiff's claim. As we have seen, the District Court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment in its favor. On this appeal the defendant urges that the answer raises two factual defenses which, if proved, will defeat the plaintiff's claim and which he is, accordingly, entitled to have an opportunity to prove at the trial. If the allegations of fact to which the defendant refers do amount to defenses which the law recognizes there would, of course, be merit in the defendant's contention. We will, therefore, outline the facts alleged by the pleadings, assuming the allegations of fact in the answer to be true, in order to determine their legal effect.
Thus considered, the facts are these:
The plaintiff is the owner of the property in controversy which it rented to the defendant (who had had a prior lease) on a month-to-month written lease effective March 1, 1961, at a rental of $198 per month plus $6 per month for salt water. The lease, however, was not annexed to the pleadings and its text is not before us. The defendant used the demised premises for operating a clothing manufacturing business. By registered letter of March 2, 1962, the plaintiff notified the defendant to quit and deliver up the demised premises to the plaintiff, which the defendant has not done. The facts alleged in the answer which the defendant claims to constitute a valid defense are that the notice to quit was given "without reason * * * and while renting other similar business properties to other tenants on a similar month to month basis", and that if the defendant is compelled to remove from the premises "he will be irreparably damaged and put out of business because of his inability to secure similar business space in St. Thomas."
The defendant asserts that his eviction under these circumstances is inequitable, unjust, illegal and confiscatory, that it will deprive him of his business without due process or just compensation, and that eviction should be conditioned upon his obtaining similar suitable quarters for his business. He also asserts that the notice to quit did not comply with applicable law. We do not agree that any of the facts alleged by the defendant would, if proved, be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parks v. Bourbeau
... ... In doing so, he recognizes that the United States Supreme Court set down the general rule of Michigan v. Doran, 439 ... ...
-
Islamic Soc'y of Basking Ridge v. Twp. of Bernards
...all the material allegations of fact in the answer, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." United States v. Blumenthal , 315 F.2d 351, 352 (3d Cir. 1963). In other words, "the question is whether the facts alleged in the answer are material in the sense that, if proved, ......
-
McQueen v. Druker
...a limited period, and to recover the premises by giving an abbreviated notice that the stipulated period has expired. United States v. Blumenthal, 315 F.2d 351 (3rd Cir.). So far as concerns the Constitution, the government may be as uninformative in telling a tenant to quit as in telling a......
-
Regional Transp. Dist. v. OUTDOOR SYSTEMS, No. 00SC108.
...rights, including the right to enforce the leases on the property, which any other market buyer would have. See United States v. Blumenthal, 315 F.2d 351, 354 (3d Cir.1963) (stating that the government, "which is here acting in its proprietary rather than its governmental capacity, has the ......