GLENN
v.
KRAFT ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no clear error in the factual findings or the application of law.
Appellant Mrs. Glenn executed a new note and deed of trust to appellee Kraft, consolidating prior debts. She later sued to cancel these instruments, a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure Rule 52 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In 1936, the appellee, Kraft, purchased from one Clarke a promissory note executed by the appellant, Mrs. Alice Glenn, and her husband, secured by a deed of trust. During the next five years the Glenns became further indebted to Kraft through numerous transactions. In December, 1941, Mrs. Glenn, then widowed, executed a new note covering all debts and balances then unpaid, and secured it by executing a new deed of trust. All former evidences of debt were cancelled and former deeds of trust were released.
This suit was brought by Mrs. Glenn in the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia to cancel the 1941 note and the securing deed of trust on the ground that usury had been included in the original note. After a full hearing, the trial justice found that no usury had been collected or embraced in the note, and dismissed the complaint. Mrs. Glenn appeals.
In an action such as this, tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, we are authorized to reverse the judgment of the District Court only if in our view the findings of fact were clearly erroneous or the law was incorrectly applied.1 The findings of fact are amply supported by the record and it seems to us that the law was correctly applied by the trial justice. It follows that the judgment cannot be disturbed.
Affirmed.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 52, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.