William Earl Gsell, and v. C. A. Dumbeck, and John N. Adams, III and Donald A. Rowberry, And

Ninth Circuit

William Earl Gsell, and v. C. A. Dumbeck, and John N. Adams, III and Donald A. Rowberry, And

431 F.2d 1204, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7148

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 30, 1970

Docket25555

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 431 F.2d 1204 (William Earl Gsell, and v. C. A. Dumbeck, and John N. Adams, III and Donald A. Rowberry, And) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

William Earl Gsell, and v. C. A. Dumbeck, and John N. Adams, III and Donald A. Rowberry, And, 431 F.2d 1204, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7148 (9th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In a non-jury trial, an able and experienced trial judge found the defendants guilty of fraudulent misrepresentations and entered judgment against all defendants. Although defendant Adams was the ringleader, there is little doubt that appellant Dumbeek actively participated in the overall plan. Only Dumbeek appeals.

We affirm the judgment for the reasons stated in the opinion and findings of the trial judge. Gsell v. Adams, Dumbeck & Rowberry, 316 F.Supp. 394 (D.Or.1969). The proof supports the elements of actionable fraud as they are stated in Conzelmann v. Northwest Poultry & D. Prod. Co., 190 Or. 332, 350, 225 P.2d 757 (1950); Musgrave v. Lucas, 193 Or. 401, 410, 238 P.2d 780 (1951); and Libby Creek Logging, Inc. v. Johnson, 225 Or. 336, 358 P.2d 491 (1960). Moreover, we hold that the actions of the trial court in permitting the amendment of the pretrial order to conform to the proof and in finding against the appellant on the issue of waiver are not clearly erroneous. The judgment must be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

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

PER CURIAM:

In a non-jury trial, an able and experienced trial judge found the defendants guilty of fraudulent misrepresentations and entered judgment against all defendants. Although defendant Adams was the ringleader, there is little doubt that appellant Dumbeek actively participated in the overall plan. Only Dumbeek appeals.

We affirm the judgment for the reasons stated in the opinion and findings of the trial judge. Gsell v. Adams, Dumbeck & Rowberry, 316 F.Supp. 394 (D.Or.1969). The proof supports the elements of actionable fraud as they are stated in Conzelmann v. Northwest Poultry & D. Prod. Co., 190 Or. 332, 350, 225 P.2d 757 (1950); Musgrave v. Lucas, 193 Or. 401, 410, 238 P.2d 780 (1951); and Libby Creek Logging, Inc. v. Johnson, 225 Or. 336, 358 P.2d 491 (1960). Moreover, we hold that the actions of the trial court in permitting the amendment of the pretrial order to conform to the proof and in finding against the appellant on the issue of waiver are not clearly erroneous. The judgment must be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Puget Sound Gillnetters Association v. United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, United States of America, Real Parties in Interest. Columbia River Fishermen's Protective Union, Inc., Petitioners v. United States District Court for the District of Oregon, and United States of America, Real Parties in Interest-Appellees. United States of America v. State of Washington

573 F.2d 1123 (Ninth Circuit, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

431 F.2d 1204, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-earl-gsell-and-v-c-a-dumbeck-and-john-n-adams-iii-and-donald-ca9-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack