Peterson v. Davis

D.C. Circuit

Peterson v. Davis

186 F.2d 537, 88 U.S. App. D.C. 128, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2335

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 28, 1950

Docket10545

StatusPublished

This text of 186 F.2d 537 (Peterson v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Peterson v. Davis, 186 F.2d 537, 88 U.S. App. D.C. 128, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2335 (D.C. Cir. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

PROCTOR, Circuit Judge.

Appellee sued to recover title to her home and overpayment of monies made on the purchase price. The court’s findings sustained allegations of misrepresentation and deceit by appellant George W. Peterson inducing appellee, without a true understanding of her acts, to transfer the property and make overpayments by reason of her trust and confidence in him. The court also found that appellee acted with diligence in bringing suit upon the discovery of the actual facts and was not guilty of laches. Accordingly judgment was entered for reconveyance of the property and for the ascertained amount of the overpayments. The findings are attacked as contrary to the evidence and law.

In our opinion there is substantial evidence to support the findings of fact. We cannot say they are clearly erroneous. Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. rule 52(a), 28 U.S.C.A. It necessarilly follows upon fundamental legal principles that the judgment was properly entered.

Affirmed.

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

PROCTOR, Circuit Judge.

Appellee sued to recover title to her home and overpayment of monies made on the purchase price. The court’s findings sustained allegations of misrepresentation and deceit by appellant George W. Peterson inducing appellee, without a true understanding of her acts, to transfer the property and make overpayments by reason of her trust and confidence in him. The court also found that appellee acted with diligence in bringing suit upon the discovery of the actual facts and was not guilty of laches. Accordingly judgment was entered for reconveyance of the property and for the ascertained amount of the overpayments. The findings are attacked as contrary to the evidence and law.

In our opinion there is substantial evidence to support the findings of fact. We cannot say they are clearly erroneous. Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. rule 52(a), 28 U.S.C.A. It necessarilly follows upon fundamental legal principles that the judgment was properly entered.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 F.2d 537, 88 U.S. App. D.C. 128, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterson-v-davis-cadc-1950.