JAFFKE
v.
DUNHAM, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY
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.
A successful party can sustain a judgment on any ground in the record, and an appellate court can consider evidence even without a cross-appeal.
Petitioner sought to recover funds from a bankruptcy trustee, alleging the bankrupt obtained money by fraud and turned it over to the trustee. The Dis…
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 Constructive Trust cases and more on FLexlaw
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 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (110 total)
-
Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1970)…and in the District Court, consideration of the statutory claim is appropriate. Bondholders Committee v. Commissioner, 315 U. S. 189, 192 n. 2; H. Hart & H. Wechsler, The Federal Courts and the Federal System 1394 (1953). See also Jaffke v. Dunham, 352 U. S. 280. 64 Stat. 550, as amended, 76 Stat. 185, 81 Stat. 881, 42 U. S. C. § 602 (a) (10) (1964 ed., Supp. V). 42 U. S. C. §606 (a) (1964 ed., Supp. IV) provides: “The term ‘dependent child’ means a needy child (1) who has been deprived of parental suppo…
-
United States v. Itt Cont'l Baking Co., 420 U.S. 223 (U.S. 1975)…7, 92,129 (Aug. 2, 1971), but it said that this statement was “obiter dictum.”) In the absence of decisions on these questions by the courts below, we decline to address them. FTC v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 363 U. S. 536, 542 (1960); Jaffke v. Dunham, 352 U. S. 280 (1957); Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Flowers, 330 U. S. 464, 468 (1947). Cf. Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 476 n. 6. (1970). Continental was merged on September 13, 1968, with a wholly owned subsidiary of International Telephone and Teleg…
-
Am. Dental Ass'n v. CIGNA Corp., 605 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2010)…s for affirming its judgment, because "we may affirm its judgment 'on any ground that finds support in the record.’ " Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F. 3d 1249, 1256 (11th Cir.2001) (quoting Jaffke v. Dunham, 352 U.S. 280, 281, 77 S.Ct. 307, 308, 1 L.Ed.2d 314 (1957)). The district court's dismissal of the substantive RICO claim is still due to be affirmed because Plaintiffs have not pleaded the claim with sufficient particularity under Rule 9(b). . We are not convinced that Plaintiffs actually allege pa…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 110 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Langnes v. Green, 282 U.S. 531 (U.S. 1931)
- United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. Am. Ry. Express Co., 265 U.S. 425 (U.S. 1924)
- In re Knetzer v. Dunham, 229 F.2d 232 (7th Cir. 1956)
- Leedom v. Int'l Union of Mine, 351 U.S. 949 (U.S. 1956)
- Jaffke v. Dunham, 351 U.S. 949 (U.S. 1956)