# New Amsterdam Casualty Company, and Cross-Appellant v. Gladys N. Waller, and Cross-Appellee

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · September 16, 1963 · 323 F.2d 20

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9449628

## Case

- **Full name:** NEW AMSTERDAM CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. Gladys N. WALLER, Appellant and Cross-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 16, 1963
- **Citations:** 323 F.2d 20; 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4215
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Bryan
- **Judges:** Bryan, Haynsworth, Watkins
- **Cited by:** 148 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9449628

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that supplemental pleading “enabl[es] a court to award complete relief, or more nearly complete relief, in one action, and to avoid the cost, delay and waste of separate actions which must be separately tried and prosecuted”
- explaining that supplemental pleading “enables] a court to award complete relief, or more nearly complete relief, ha one action, and to avoid the cost, delay and waste of separate actions which must be separately tried and prosecuted”
- holding that judicial admissions "go to matters of fact” and that "[t]he doctrine of judicial admissions has never been applied to counsel’s statement of his conception of the legal theory of the case”
- declining on remand to construe as judicial admission counsel’s prior legal stipulation disproved on appeal, as informed by modern pleading practice that “a party’s misconception of the legal theory of his case does not work a forfeiture of his legal rights”
- explaining that Rule 15(d) “enabl[es] a court to award complete relief, or more nearly complete relief, in one action, and to avoid the cost, delay and waste of separate actions”

## Opinion text

ALBERT V. BRYAN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting in part).
My only disagreement with the opinion of the Court is its failure to allow recovery by the plaintiff of the mortgage interest payments made from the donor’s moneys. I do not think it can be said that the satisfaction of the interest obligation failed to enhance the value of the property in the donee’s hands. To my mind, it increased her equity as much pro tanto as did the payments on the principal. The interest was as much a mortgage debt and lien as the principal. If the interest had not been paid, its accumulation would have decreased the equity of the donee in the property. In this way satisfaction of the interest increased the equity.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9449628. Public record. Not legal advice.