Walterman v. Taylor

Second Circuit

Walterman v. Taylor

168 F.2d 413, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2060

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 29, 1948

DocketNo. 283, Docket 21008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 168 F.2d 413 (Walterman v. Taylor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Walterman v. Taylor, 168 F.2d 413, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2060 (2d Cir. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an action for a declaratory judgment. The court below denied the plaintiff’s demand for a jury trial and the plaintiff appeals. The disposition of the court was plainly right since neither the pleadings nor the proof disclose any cause of action for damages, for the establishment of an interest in property, nor is any other issue of legal cognizance involved, but only a claim for the establishment of the plaintiff’s personal status. Our recent decision in Ring v. Spina, 2 Cir., 166 F.2d 546, not only does not contravene but bears out the result reached by the court below.

On the merits the findings of the trial court arc clearly supported by the evidence so that the judgment entered necessarily followed. Even if there had been error in denying a jury trial, as we hold there was not, the disposition of the case by the court below was justified since there was no question of fact having sufficient support in the evidence to submit to a jury as the basis for any claim against the defendants-appellees.

The judgment of the district court and the order denying a motion for a new trial are affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an action for a declaratory judgment. The court below denied the plaintiff’s demand for a jury trial and the plaintiff appeals. The disposition of the court was plainly right since neither the pleadings nor the proof disclose any cause of action for damages, for the establishment of an interest in property, nor is any other issue of legal cognizance involved, but only a claim for the establishment of the plaintiff’s personal status. Our recent decision in Ring v. Spina, 2 Cir., 166 F.2d 546, not only does not contravene but bears out the result reached by the court below.

On the merits the findings of the trial court arc clearly supported by the evidence so that the judgment entered necessarily followed. Even if there had been error in denying a jury trial, as we hold there was not, the disposition of the case by the court below was justified since there was no question of fact having sufficient support in the evidence to submit to a jury as the basis for any claim against the defendants-appellees.

The judgment of the district court and the order denying a motion for a new trial are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 F.2d 413, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2060, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walterman-v-taylor-ca2-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack