United States v. Lindholm
Decision Date | 04 November 1935 |
Docket Number | No. 7577.,7577. |
Citation | 79 F.2d 784,103 ALR 213 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. LINDHOLM et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Peirson M. Hall, U. S. Atty., of Los Angeles, Cal., and Will G. Beardslee, Director, Bureau of War Risk Litigation, of Washington, D. C., and Wilbur C. Pickett and Fendall Marbury, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for the United States.
James H. O'Neill, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before WILBUR, GARRECHT, and DENMAN, Circuit Judges.
Albert L. Lindholm brought suit against the United States in 1932, to recover total disability payments under a policy of war risk insurance, alleging his service in the armed forces of defendant, the perfecting of a policy of insurance, his disability, and refusal of the government to make the payments demanded.
Subsequently the original plaintiff died, and Albert Julian Lindholm, his executor, and one of the present appellees, was substituted as plaintiff by stipulation. In a second amended complaint, the executor sued on the testator's original cause of action and, in a separate count, joins with Martha May Trostler, the other appellee here, in a suit on the beneficiary provisions of the policy.
The United States filed an answer in the form of a general denial, whereupon the appellees moved for summary judgment under section 437c of the California Code of Civil Procedure, as added by St. 1933, p. 1848, § 27, filing affidavits as required. Upon failure of the defendant to file counter affidavits, the court struck out the answer and gave judgment for appellees. There were no opinion, findings, and conclusions as required by 28 USCA § 764. The United States appeals.
The appeal presents two questions. (1) Are the federal courts in California required by the Conformity Act (28 USCA § 724) to enforce the California Summary Judgment Act ( ) in ordinary suits upon a debt or a liquidated demand? (2) If federal courts have such power, are the provisions of the Tucker Act (24 Stat. 505), which controls suits to recover debts or liquidated demands under the World War Veterans' legislation (38 U. S. C. Supp. VII, § 445 38 USCA § 445), so inconsistent with the California Summary Judgment Law that judgment under the latter cannot be rendered in such suits?
1. This court does not question the desirability of shortening the procedure in civil suits by the elimination of unnecessary delays caused by answers technically presenting an issue and yet not substantially grounded in the defendant's facts. In view of our answer to the second question above stated, it is unnecessary for us to discuss it, other than point out that similar provisions for summary judgments have been recognized as controlling in federal courts. Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. U. S., 187 U. S. 315, 23 S. Ct. 120, 47 L. Ed. 194; Hoff v. St. Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co. (C. C. A. 2d) 74 F.(2d) 689; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Sparks (C. C. A. 6th) 76 F.(2d) 929, 933.
2. Analysis of the provisions of the respective statutes compels a negative answer to the second question.
added by Act June 5, 1933, c. 744, p. 1848, § 27) provides in part as follows:
The pertinent provisions of the Tucker Act, codified in sections 762 and 763 of title 28 of the U. S. Code (28 USCA §§ 762, 763) and made controlling in suits under the World War Veterans' Act by section 19 thereof, are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kleban v. Morris
...282 U.S 656, 660, 51 S.Ct. 284, 75 L.Ed. 598; Smith v. Reeves, 178 U.S. 436, 20 S.Ct. 919, 44 L.Ed. 1140; United States v. Lindholm, 9 Cir., 79 F.2d 784, 787, 103 A.L.R. 213, 216; American Mut. Lia. Ins. Co. v. Kansas Highway Comm., 146 Kan. 239, 69 P.2d 1091, 1094; Automobile Sales Co. v. ......
-
Aguirre v. Southern Pac. Co.
...in a FELA case. He cites in support of that proposition two cases brought under the Tucker Act in the Federal Court, United States v. Lindholm, 9 Cir., 79 F.2d 784, and United States v. Stevenson, 9 Cir., 79 F.2d 788. But in those cases the court, while expressly recognizing that in an ordi......
-
City of Chino v. Superior Court of Orange County
...in any such suit.' Statutes waiving the immunity of the United States from suit must be strictly construed. (United States v. Lindholm, 9 Cir., 79 F.2d 784, 103 A.L.R. 213.) The courts of the state are bound by the interpretation put upon federal statutes by the courts of the United States.......
-
Bryan v. United States
...S.Ct. 149, 151, 69 L.Ed. 394. 4 Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571, 581, 54 S.Ct. 840, 844, 78 L.Ed. 1434. 5 United States v. Lindholm, 9 Cir., 79 F.2d 784, 787, 103 A.L.R. 213; Kemp v. United States, 7 Cir., 77 F.2d 213, 214. 6 Reid v. United States, 211 U.S. 529, 538, 29 S.Ct. 171, 53 L......