Bobula v. Tamamian.
| Decision Date | 24 October 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 556.,556. |
| Parties | DE BOBULA v. TAMAMIAN. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from the Municipal Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Division.
Action by Paul Tamamian against Titus De Bobula to recover rent, wherein the defendant filed a counterclaim for damages arising out of the landlord's alleged negligence in operating the leased premises and also a motion to dismiss. From an order overruling the motion to dismiss, the defendant appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
Titus De Bobula, pro se.
H. Max Ammerman, of Washington, D. C. (Louis Ottenberg, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.
Before CAYTON, Chief Judge, and HOOD and CLAGETT, Associate Judges.
Defendant-tenant appeals from a denial of his motion to dismiss an action by appellee-landlord for rent due and unpaid.
The landlord's suit being for less than $500, the action was commenced by filing a bill of particulars as authorized by Municipal Court rules. Although not required to do so, the tenant then filed an affidavit of defense. In such affidavit he claimed that he did not owe the rent because (1) the landlord was liable to him for damages in the amount of $15,000 by reason of the landlord's negligence in operating the leased premises and (2) the landlord was liable to him as a result of the landlord's failure to supply services in violation of an order of the Rent Administrator made pursuant to the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act, D.C.Code 1940, § 45-1601 et seq. As a further defense the tenant alleged that he had previously sued the landlord in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for damages for certain injuries, that such action was still pending in the District Court and that the landlord should have filed his claim for rent as a counterclaim in the District Court action. At the same time the tenant also filed a counterclaim against the landlord for $15,000 for damages and also the motion to dismiss the landlord's action. The trial court overruled the motion to dismiss, and it is from that ruling that this appeal is taken.
It is obvious that the denial of a motion to dismiss is not a final or appealable order, Toomey v. Toomey, 80 U.S.App. D.C. 77, 149 F.2d 19, and hence that the present appeal must be dismissed.
While our decision on this point disposes of the appeal, we think we should add that the landlord was not required to file the present claim for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crown Oil, Etc. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 79-960.
...a final order. Plunkett v. Gill, D.C. App., 287 A.2d 543 (1972); Kaplan v. Bollt, D.C.Mun.App., 158 A.2d 680 (1960); De Bohula v. Tamamian, D.C.Mun.App., 55 A.2d 204 (1947). This court has consistently endorsed the general rule that the test for determining whether an order is final for pur......
-
Smith v. Greenway Apartments LP
...has recognized that counterclaims may be permissive, albeit under Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See De Bobula v. Tamamian , 55 A.2d 204, 205 (D.C. 1947). Historically, the L & T Branch has operated under a different rule when a landlord filed for recovery of possession of......
-
Kaplan v. Bollt
...Mun.App. 1954, 104 A.2d 528 (denial of motion to stay). Kaplowitz Bros. v. Kahan, D.C.Mun.App. 1948, 59 A.2d 795; De Bohula v. Tamamian, D.C.Mun.App., 1947, 55 A.2d 204, citing Toomey v. Toomey, 1945, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 77, 149 F.2d 19 (denial of motion to ...
-
Kaplowitz Bros. Inc. v. Kahan., 608.
...should be presented in the present circumstances is not the Municipal Court but the District Court. Appeal dismissed. 1De Bobula v. Tamamian, D.C.Mun.App., 55 A.2d 204, citing Tommey v. Toomey, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 77, 149 F.2d 19. 2Cf. Geracy, Inc. v. Hoover, 77 U.S.App.D.C. 55, 133 F.2d 25, 14......