U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1944

Williams v. Kolb

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided November 6, 1944 · Groner, Miller, Arnold

145 F.2d 344; 79 U.S. App. D.C. 253; 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2509 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Maurice R. Weeks, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Thurman L. Dodson, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant., Mr. George C. Gertman, of Washington,. D. G, for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

Mrs. Jack D. Fowler v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company (5th Cir. 1965)
Fitzgerald v. Seamans (District Court, District of Columbia 1974)
Livingston S. Hiern v. St. Paul-Mercury Indemnity Company (5th Cir. 1959)
G. D. Searle & Co. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc. (7th Cir. 1956)
United States ex rel. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Lacy (United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama 1953)
Rolfe v. Swearingen (Tex. App. 1951)
Fonville v. Southern Materials Co. (Tex. App. 1951)
Orvis v. Brickman (District Court, District of Columbia 1951)
Pentecost v. Travelers Ins. Co. (Tex. App. 1951)
Ring Engineering Co. v. Otis Elevator Co. (D.C. Cir. 1950)
Ulen v. American Airlines, Inc. (District Court, District of Columbia 1947)
Charlotte Housing for the Elderly v. Cuomo (District Court, District of Columbia 2000)
Page v. Sloan (N.C. 1972)
Dewey v. Clark (D.C. Cir. 1950)
Peckham v. Ronrico Corp. (District Court, D. Puerto Rico 1947)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order granting a summary judgment in 'an action to-set aside a sale under a deed of trust to secure a promissory note executed by the plaintiff. The sole question is whether the trustee under the deed of trust had sufficient interest in the promissory note-secured by that deed to invalidate the sale under our rule in Spruill v. Ballard. 1 Defendants filed sworn pleadings setting out in great detail facts showing that the holder of the note at the time of the sale was. a purchaser and the trustee had no interest therein. Plaintiff filed no counter affidavits. He relied upon general allegations in his complaint that the holder of the note was “in fact and truth the agent, tool and straw” of the trustee. Such general: allegations were not sufficient on a motion for summary judgment to raise an issue of fact against the detailed statements sworn to by the defendants. They do not come within Rule 56(e) 2 which provides that on a motion for summary judgment “supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify as to the matters stated therein.”

There was no genuine issue of fact disclosed by the record 3 in this case and the judgment of the court will be affirmed.

1932, 61 App.D.C. 112, 58 F.2d 517.

Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.

Fletcher v. Krise, 1941, 73 App.D.C. 266, 120 F.2d 809.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.