From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Leigh v. Barnhart

United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Apr 6, 1950
10 F.R.D. 279 (D.N.J. 1950)

Opinion

         William Robinson Leigh brought action against Floyd Barnhart and others. On plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The District Court, Fake, Chief Judge, held that the Court was without power to read an affidavit or statement against a well-pleaded allegation in answer for purpose of ascertaining the truth on plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

         Motion denied.

         

          William V. Azzoli, Newark, N. J., for plaintiff.

          Rothbard, Harris & Oxfeld, Newark, N. J., for defendants.


          FAKE, Chief Judge.

         This is a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A. The motion is a written motion and reads as follows: ‘ * * * attorney for plaintiff, * * * will apply * * * for the entry of a judgment for the plaintiff for the relief demanded in the complaint, on the basis of the complaint, plaintiff's further statement, affidavit with exhibits hereto, and defendants' answer, upon the ground that no material issue of fact is raised by said pleadings and no legal defense is alleged in the answer, the defenses alleged therein being sham.’

         This court is wholly without power to read an affidavit or statement agaisnt a well-pleaded allegation in an answer for the purpose of ascertaining the truth on a motion such as this. See Frederick Hart & Co. v. Recordgraph Corp., 3 Cir., 169 F.2d 580; Reynolds Metals Co. v. Metals Disintegrating Co., D.C., 8 F.R.D. 349, affirmed 3 Cir., 176 F.2d 90.

         The motion is denied.


Summaries of

Leigh v. Barnhart

United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Apr 6, 1950
10 F.R.D. 279 (D.N.J. 1950)
Case details for

Leigh v. Barnhart

Case Details

Full title:LEIGH v. BARNHART et al.

Court:United States District Court, D. New Jersey

Date published: Apr 6, 1950

Citations

10 F.R.D. 279 (D.N.J. 1950)

Citing Cases

Transcontinental G.P.L. Corp. v. Borough of Milltown

The same principle of law, above enunciated, has been applied to answers as well as complaints. Leigh v.…

Dovberg v. Dow Chemical Company

In the District of New Jersey: Montmarquet v. Johnson Johnson, D.C., 82 F. Supp. 469; Postel v. Caruso, D.C.,…