U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1955

C. Newton Jeffress v. J. Daniel Weitzman

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided March 31, 1955 · Bazelon, Fahy, Per Curiam, Washington

221 F.2d 542; 95 U.S. App. D.C. 261; 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3536 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Arthur J. Hilland, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Vincent C. Burke, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant., Mr. Leonard S. Melrod, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Joseph V. Gartlan, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Feldman v. Birger (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1962)
Johnston v. Rodis (District Court, District of Columbia 1957)
Seago v. North Carolina Theatres, Inc. (District Court, E.D. North Carolina 1966)

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.

Appellant, a real estate broker, filed suit in the District Court against appellee in a two count complaint. The first count alleges in substance that defendant promised to pay plaintiff the usual and customary real estate broker’s commission if defendant purchased certain real estate the availability of which was brought to his attention by plaintiff, but which defendant in fact purchased through another agent. The court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. As permitted by Rule 56 (b), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C.A., *543 the court before ruling considered a deposition in which plaintiff fully set forth the factual basis for his claim of a promise as alleged. No other facts being advanced summary judgment for defendant was proper, for the deposition shows no factual issue which would have justified the court in refusing to direct a verdict for defendant; that is, as the Rule states, defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(b), supra; Dewey v. Clark, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 137, 143, 180 F.2d 766, 772.

The second count sought damages for alleged fraud and deceit by defendant in concealing from the owners and sellers that plaintiff was the procuring cause of the purchase by defendant; but the allegations of this count if true make out no legal obligation on defendant’s part. We agree that this count was properly dismissed on motion.

Affirmed.

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