Sampson v. Thomas, 6978.
| Decision Date | 19 March 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 6978.,6978. |
| Parties | SAMPSON et al. v. THOMAS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
C. Walter Healy and George H. Lovequest, both of Detroit, Mich., for plaintiffs.
Willis M. Graves and Francis M. Dent, both of Detroit, Mich., for defendant.
Findings of Fact.
of which defendant was and is the landlord. The various plaintiffs, and the details of their respective claims as alleged in the complaint are as follows:
Total
Plaintiffs Period Weeks Overcharges Overcharges
Sampson: 2/28/46 to 10/24/47 85 $ 5.00 $510.00
Dubois: 6/8/46 to 10/24/47 71 6.00 426.00
Cross: 2/1/47 to 10/24/47 28 4.35 121.80
Louie: 3/17/47 to 10/24/47 30 6.00 180.00
___________
Total claimed overcharges $1,237.80
Trebled 3,682.40
All parties are citizens and residents of Detroit, Michigan.
2. To a large extent, these four claims arise out of the same series of acts and transactions. The housing accommodations in question consist of four units of various rooms each in a house owned and operated by defendant at 4858 Vermont Avenue, Detroit, Michigan. Defendant's actions toward, and treatment of, these four tenants followed a common pattern. Each tenant was required to pay rent on a weekly basis, and in cash. Each was wilfully and consistently charged about one-third above the established maximum rent. Defendant refused the joint and several demands of plaintiffs to charge only the legal rate and to give receipts for amounts paid. The four plaintiffs went together to seek advice from a Veterans' Administration Counsellor, upon whose advice, and, acting in concert, each plaintiff thereafter tendered his rent coupled with a request for a written receipt, and, upon defendant's refusal to give a receipt, each refused to turn over the cash. After several weeks of these tenders and refusals, defendant instituted four eviction suits for nonpayment of rent at one time, returnable at the same time. These eviction cases were heard together on October 8, 1947; the four tenants were without counsel; and the court advised the tenants that they should pay any rent owing at that time and advised the landlord to give receipts for amounts paid. Thereupon, the parties went outside the courtroom, and defendant demanded, and plaintiffs paid, certain supposedly accrued rents, for which defendant gave receipts. These eviction court files and receipts, introduced in evidence here, substantiate plaintiffs' testimony that even at that time, each tenant was overcharged. Plaintiffs, still acting in concert, went from the eviction court to consult with a private attorney, as a result of which this action was instituted. During the pendency of this action, defendant unsuccessfully attempted to evict three of these plaintiffs who were still his tenants upon the pretext that they were creating a nuisance. Since that time, these plaintiffs have found other living quarters.
3. Various issues of fact and law are common to these four claims, and it has been convenient and expeditious for all parties and the court to try the claims at one time. Only one house and one landlord are involved. The testimony of each of the four plaintiffs as to actions of defendant-landlord in consistently overcharging all four plaintiff-tenants, in the face of their joint and several protests, have significant bearings on the questions of knowledge, intent and wilfulness of defendant's violations as to any and all claims here involved. The witness from the Office of Housing Expediter had to make only one appearance to testify as to maximum rents and other pertinent data contained in a single file covering all units of the house in question. One appearance was sufficient for the clerk of the eviction court to produce all files relating to litigation in that court involving the subject matter of this action. The legal issues which are common to each of the four claims include the jurisdiction of this court over a private suit instituted after July 1, 1947, involving rental overcharges which occurred prior to that date under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 901 et seq., which expired on June 30, 1947, the jurisdiction of this court over private claims for rental overcharges which occurred since that date under the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 1881 et seq., and whether such claims are legally enforcible at this time. The effect of the one-year statute of limitations contained in these Acts is involved in the first two of these claims.
4. During the periods covered by the complaint, the weekly rents paid by each plaintiff, the legal maximum weekly rent for the respective units, and the weekly overcharges were as follows:
Plaintiff Paid Maximum Overcharges Periods
Sampson: $12.50 $7.00 $5.50 2/28/46 to 10/24/47
Dubois: 15.00 9.00 6.00 6/8/46 to 10/8/47
Cross: 11.35 6.00 5.35 2/8/47 to 7/8/47
10.35 6.00 4.35 7/9/47 to 9/11/47
10.00 6.00 4.00 9/12/47 to 10/24/47
Louie: 15.00 9.00 6.00 3/17/47 to 10/24/47
5. These rental overcharges were made by defendant wilfully and systematically, with intent to violate and evade the rent control laws.
6. The overcharges paid by each plaintiff within one year of suit, trebled, are as follows:
Trebled
Sampson: 10/26/46 to 10/24/47, 52 weeks @ $5.50, $286.00 $858.00
Dubois: 10/26/46 to 10/8/47, 50 weeks @ $6.00, $300.00 $900.00
Cross: 2/8/47 to 7/8/47, 22 weeks @ $5.35, $107.70
7/9/47 to 9/11/47, 9 weeks @ $4.35, $ 39.15
9/12/47 to 10/24/47, 6 weeks @ $4.00, $ 24.00
_______
$170.85 $512.55
Louie: 3/17/47 to 10/24/47, 32 weeks @ $6.00, $192.00 $576.00
7. Two of the plaintiffs whose tenancies continued after institution of this action owed eleven and four weeks' rent, respectively, at the time tenancy was terminated, and plaintiffs' counsel conceded that these unpaid amounts should be deducted from the judgment herein, which makes these two computations as follows:
Treble...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hales v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.
...amount requirement exists with regard to Section 1355. See Woods v. Kern, 87 F.Supp. 383, 384 (E.D.Pa.1949); Sampson v. Thomas, 76 F.Supp. 691, 693 (E.D.Mich.1948); Powell v. Rhine, 71 F.Supp. 953, 954 (M.D.Pa.1947). See also Daniel v. First National Bank, 227 F.2d 353, 354, reh. denied, 22......
-
Telex Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp.
...Corp. v. Paramount Dist. Corp., 206 F.Supp. 708 (N.D.Cal.1962); Waters v. Turner, 76 F.Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa.1948); Sampson v. Thomas, 76 F. Supp. 691 (E.D.Mich.1948); and Jerard Associates, Inc. v. The Stanley Works, 1966 Trade Cas. ¶ 71,820 (D.C. S.D.N.Y.1966). In these cases the counterclai......
-
Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Com'n v. National Football League
...itself should occur only after damages have been trebled. See Waters v. Turner, 76 F.Supp. 279 (E.D.Pa.1948); Sampson v. Thomas, 76 F.Supp. 691 Together with Flintkote and Jerard, these cases demonstrate that where the law has a punitive objective in trebling compensatory damages, offsets f......
-
Bal Theatre Corp. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp.
...should be trebled and that the amount of unpaid rent should be deducted. See: Waters v. Turner, D.C., 76 F. Supp. 279, and Sampson v. Thomas, D.C., 76 F.Supp. 691. Along with Flintkote, supra, these cases indicate that where the law has a punitive purpose in multiplying the compensatory dam......