Fadeley v. National City Development Co.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Fadeley v. National City Development Co.

137 A.2d 566, 1958 D.C. App. LEXIS 204

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 14, 1958

DocketNo. 2102

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 137 A.2d 566 (Fadeley v. National City Development Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fadeley v. National City Development Co., 137 A.2d 566, 1958 D.C. App. LEXIS 204 (D.C. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial judge, in his Statement of Proceedings and Evidence filed in this court, states:

“ * * * [A]t the close of oral argument the trial judge made oral findings of fact and orally announced conclusions of law which were not reduced to writing and submitted by either counsel prior to entry of judgment. The ultimate finding of the Court was in favor of the defendant.”

While the trial judge was not required to make findings of fact or conclusions of law, this court is of the opinion that if they are made, they constitute a part of the record and should be incorporated in it on appeal. Accordingly, by our order dated December 16, 1957, we directed that the trial judge “forward to this court such findings and conclusions, or a summary thereof, in writing, to be made a part of the record of this case on appeal.” We are now advised by the trial judge that he is unable to comply with our order. We feel it would be unfair to the parties for us to arrive at a decision on the merits, because of the incomplete state of the record. We therefore reverse and remand the case for a new trial.

It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The trial judge, in his Statement of Proceedings and Evidence filed in this court, states:

“ * * * [A]t the close of oral argument the trial judge made oral findings of fact and orally announced conclusions of law which were not reduced to writing and submitted by either counsel prior to entry of judgment. The ultimate finding of the Court was in favor of the defendant.”

While the trial judge was not required to make findings of fact or conclusions of law, this court is of the opinion that if they are made, they constitute a part of the record and should be incorporated in it on appeal. Accordingly, by our order dated December 16, 1957, we directed that the trial judge “forward to this court such findings and conclusions, or a summary thereof, in writing, to be made a part of the record of this case on appeal.” We are now advised by the trial judge that he is unable to comply with our order. We feel it would be unfair to the parties for us to arrive at a decision on the merits, because of the incomplete state of the record. We therefore reverse and remand the case for a new trial.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.2d 566, 1958 D.C. App. LEXIS 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fadeley-v-national-city-development-co-dc-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack