Opinion · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Williams v. Kolb

Williams v. Kolb, 145 F.2d 344 (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1944)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1944-11-06
Topic: general

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.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Williams v. Kolb. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 16 opinions

WILLIAMS v. KOLB,145 F.2d 344(D.C. Cir. 1944)

WILLIAMS v. KOLB et al.

No. 8703.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued October 17, 1944.

Decided November 6, 1944.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

Action by Eveleigh Williams, administrator, against J. Leo Kolb, trustee, and individually, and another to set aside a sale under a deed of trust. From an order granting a summary judgment, the plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

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.C., for appellees.

Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and MILLER and ARNOLD, Associate Justices.

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.¹Defendants 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)²which 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 record³in this case and the judgment of the court will be affirmed.Page 345Page 377

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. ↩