United States v. Certain Land and Interests in Property, Civ. No. 2453.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Tennessee
Writing for the CourtFyke Farmer, Nashville, Tenn., for intervenor, Joseph W. Hart
Citation225 F. Supp. 338
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. CERTAIN LAND AND INTERESTS IN PROPERTY Situate IN RUTHERFORD COUNTY, STATE OF TENNESSEE, and Stones River Homes, Inc., A Corporation, et al., Defendants.
Decision Date06 January 1964
Docket NumberCiv. No. 2453.

225 F. Supp. 338

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
CERTAIN LAND AND INTERESTS IN PROPERTY Situate IN RUTHERFORD COUNTY, STATE OF TENNESSEE, and Stones River Homes, Inc., A Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Civ. No. 2453.

United States District Court M. D. Tennessee, Nashville Division.

January 6, 1964.


225 F. Supp. 339

Kenneth Harwell, U. S. Atty., Nashville, Tenn., and Ralph J. Luttrell, U. S. Dept. of Justice, Lands Div., Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

Lewis S. Pope, Jordan Stokes III, Nashville, Tenn., Joseph M. Williamson, Urbana, Ill., Ernest D. Brookins, Atlanta, Ga., for defendants and movant, Edward S. Carmack.

Fyke Farmer, Nashville, Tenn., for intervenor, Joseph W. Hart.

WILLIAM E. MILLER, Chief Judge.

Condemnation proceedings have been initiated by the United States government to acquire certain apartment buildings adjacent to Sewart Air Force Base, Rutherford County, Tennessee. Joseph W. Hart (herein referred to as Intervenor) has been permitted to intervene in order to present an asserted interest in the property being condemned. Edward S. Carmack (herein referred to as Movant), one of the parties joined as defendant in the action, has moved for summary judgment against the Intervenor pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The factual issue is whether or not the Intervenor has an equitable interest in the property so that he will be entitled to share in the condemnation award. The Intervenor claims that the money he put up at the outset of the venture was an investment. The Movant claims that it was a loan.

Movant alleges that on three separate occasions, once under oath before a committee of the United States Senate, and in lettters to the Internal Revenue Service and to the Federal Housing Authority, the Intervenor stated that he did not have any beneficial or equitable interest in the property, and therefore that the Intervenor should be estopped to claim an interest and assert a position inconsistent with those previously taken.

There is a preliminary question whether estoppel in the present situation is to be decided as a matter of state or federal law. The rights in issue are not before this court as a result of diversity of citizenship, nor is a federally created right being asserted. Nevertheless, the principles stated in Guaranty Trust Co. of N. Y. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 65 S.Ct. 1464, 89 L.Ed. 2079 (1945), seem applicable:

"Matters of `substance' and matter of `procedure' are much talked about in the books as though they defined a great divide cutting across the whole domain of law. But, of course, `substance' and `procedure' are the same key-words to very different
225 F. Supp. 340
problems. Neither `substance' nor `procedure' represents the same invariants. Each implies different variables depending upon the particular problem for which it is used. * * *
"Here we are dealing with a right to recover derived not from the United States but from one of the States. * * *
"And so the question is not whether a statute of limitations is deemed a matter of `procedure' in some sense. The question is whether such a statute concerns merely the manner and the means by which a right to recover, as recognized by the State, is enforced, or whether such statutory limitation is a matter of substance in the aspect that alone is relevant to our problem, namely, does it significantly affect the result of a litigation for a federal court to disregard a law of a State that would be controlling in an action upon the same claim by the same parties in a State court?" (At page 108 of 326 U.S., at page 1469 of 65 S.Ct., 89 L.Ed. 2079) (Emphasis supplied)

Although there the Court was dealing with a state statute of limitations, the Movant's contention as to estoppel is also a plea in bar which will significantly affect the result of the litigation between these two parties. Consequently it would appear that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Levin v. Ligon, No. A109477.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 30, 2006
    ...140 Cal.App.4th 1469 1979) 472 F.Supp. 440, 442, fn. 4; United States v. Certain Land and Interests in Property (M.D.Tenn.1964) 225 F.Supp. 338, 341.) However, "[t]he greater weight of federal authority . . . supports the position that judicial estoppel applies to a party's stated posi......
  • Ceres Terminals, Inc. v. Chicago City Bank and Trust Co., No. 10062
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 31, 1994
    ...is merely an expression of opinion or legal conclusion"); United States v. Certain Land and Interests in Property (M.D.Tenn.1964), 225 F.Supp. 338, 341 ("prior statements * * * will not be binding if shown to have been mistakenly or inconsiderately made, or if they were merely exp......
  • U.S. v. Real Property Located at Incline Village, No. CV-N-90-0130-ECR.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Nevada
    • April 28, 1997
    ...United States v. Siegel, 472 F.Supp. 440, 442 n. 4 (N.D.Ill.1979); United States v. Certain Land and Interests in Rutherford County, 225 F.Supp. 338, 342. Contra In re Cassidy, 892 F.2d 637, 641-42 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 812, 111 S.Ct. 48, 112 L.Ed.2d 24 (1990); Hardwick v. Cuom......
  • Dorato v. Smith, No. CIV 14–0365 JB/GBW
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • December 11, 2015
    ...‘passed on’ the alleged excess charges paid by them for electrical equipment,” because it went “to the heart of these controversies.” 225 F.Supp. at 338. The Defendants' obligation to turn over Smith's records does not have the same importance to this dispute. See Stout v. Illinois Farmers ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Levin v. Ligon, No. A109477.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 30, 2006
    ...140 Cal.App.4th 1469 1979) 472 F.Supp. 440, 442, fn. 4; United States v. Certain Land and Interests in Property (M.D.Tenn.1964) 225 F.Supp. 338, 341.) However, "[t]he greater weight of federal authority . . . supports the position that judicial estoppel applies to a party's stated posi......
  • Ceres Terminals, Inc. v. Chicago City Bank and Trust Co., No. 10062
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 31, 1994
    ...is merely an expression of opinion or legal conclusion"); United States v. Certain Land and Interests in Property (M.D.Tenn.1964), 225 F.Supp. 338, 341 ("prior statements * * * will not be binding if shown to have been mistakenly or inconsiderately made, or if they were merely exp......
  • U.S. v. Real Property Located at Incline Village, No. CV-N-90-0130-ECR.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Nevada
    • April 28, 1997
    ...United States v. Siegel, 472 F.Supp. 440, 442 n. 4 (N.D.Ill.1979); United States v. Certain Land and Interests in Rutherford County, 225 F.Supp. 338, 342. Contra In re Cassidy, 892 F.2d 637, 641-42 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 812, 111 S.Ct. 48, 112 L.Ed.2d 24 (1990); Hardwick v. Cuom......
  • Dorato v. Smith, No. CIV 14–0365 JB/GBW
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • December 11, 2015
    ...‘passed on’ the alleged excess charges paid by them for electrical equipment,” because it went “to the heart of these controversies.” 225 F.Supp. at 338. The Defendants' obligation to turn over Smith's records does not have the same importance to this dispute. See Stout v. Illinois Farmers ......
  • 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