Supreme Court of the United States, 1957

Jaffke v. Dunham

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided January 14, 1957 · Per Curiam

352 U.S. 280; 77 S. Ct. 307; 1 L. Ed. 2d 314; 1957 U.S. LEXIS 1649 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Herbert J. Miller, Jr. argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Chauncey P. Carter, Jr. and William M. Giffin., G. W. Horsley argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

235 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Mickey Lambert v. United States (6th Cir. 1971)
Cris D'Angelo v. Conagra Foods, Inc. (11th Cir. 2005)
United States v. Rivera-Nevarez (10th Cir. 2005)
McGowan v. Ries (In re McGowan) (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Eighth Circuit 1998)
In re Dow Corning Corp. (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan 1996)
Rothery Storage & Van Co. v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc. (D.C. Cir. 1986)
Margaret Spaulding, and James Bush, Intervenors-Appellants v. University of Washington (9th Cir. 1984)
Paul McMichael and Joseph A. Nichelini v. County of Napa and Napa County Board of Supervisors (9th Cir. 1983)
Edwards v. Woods (D.C. 1978)
Chinese American Civic Council v. Attorney General of the United States (D.C. Cir. 1977)
Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, a Philippine Corporation v. Ned Putnam (9th Cir. 1970)
Sol A. Dann, John H. Neville and Louise A. Turek v. Studebaker-Packard Corporation, Harold E. Churchill, Hugh J. Ferry, and A. J. Porta (6th Cir. 1961)
Margie Reliford, Administratrix of the Estate of Henderson G. Reliford, Deceased v. Eastern Coal Corporation (6th Cir. 1958)
Delaware Valley Marine Supply Company v. American Tobacco Company (3d Cir. 1961)
Delaware Valley Marine Supply Co. v. American Tobacco Co. (3d Cir. 1961)
Peter J. Zegan v. Central Railroad Company of New Jersey (3d Cir. 1959)
Radio Systems Corp. v. Lalor (Fed. Cir. 2013)
Musselman v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama (11th Cir. 2017)
Sakari Jarvela v. Crete Carrier Corporation (11th Cir. 2015)
Orion Technology, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2013)
Rexnord Industries, LLC v. Kappos (Fed. Cir. 2013)
Ronald Bain v. Georgia Gulf Corporation (5th Cir. 2012)
Rigas v. United States (5th Cir. 2012)
Debra Taylor Johnson vs Stein Mart, Inc. (11th Cir. 2011)
McKay v. United States (11th Cir. 2011)

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.

We granted certiorari in this case to review a judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 229 F. 2d 232, reversing an order of the District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, sitting in bankruptcy, which required respondent as trustee of a bankrupt’s estate to pay $27,400 to petitioner. 351 U. S. 949. The District Court’s order was based on a finding that, subsequent to *281 the date of the adjudication of bankruptcy, the bankrupt had obtained money by fraud from the petitioner and had turned over $27,400 of that money to respondent. At the hearing before the District Court, petitioner had sought to introduce into evidence an affidavit in which the bankrupt stated that he had paid $36,000 of the money he had received from petitioner to the respondent. At the conclusion of the hearing, the District Court sustained respondent’s motion to strike the affidavit.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that petitioner had failed to prove that any specific portion of the money that he had given the bankrupt became a part of the funds in the hands of respondent. Because petitioner had not cross-appealed, the Court of Appeals held that it could not consider the action of the District Court in striking the bankrupt’s affidavit from the record.

A successful party in the District Court may sustain its judgment on any ground that finds support in the record. If the District Court was in error in striking an admissible affidavit, a cross-appeal was not a prerequisite for the Court of Appeals to rule on the admissibility of the affidavit, and finding it admissible, to find that it afforded evidence in support of the District Court judgment. United States v. American Railway Express Co., 265 U. S. 425, 435-436; Langnes v. Green, 282 U. S. 531, 538-539. Since the Court of Appeals did not consider the admissibility and weight of the affidavit, we remand to the Court of Appeals for its consideration of those issues.

The claim in this case is that relevant admissible evidence established a constructive trust. Whether it did so or not is a question of Illinois law. The Court of Appeals, in the view it took of the case before it, did not reach this local question. On remand, that question too must be considered by the Court of Appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

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