Brooks v. Jensen, 869.
| Decision Date | 20 April 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 869.,869. |
| Citation | 73 A.2d 32 |
| Parties | BROOKS et al. v. JENSEN et al. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Saul G. Lichtenberg, Washington, D. C., with whom Joseph J. Philips, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants.
Charles II. Quimby, Washington, D. C., for appellees John M. Jensen and Daisy Jensen.
Before CAYTITON, Chief Judge, and HOOD and CLAGETT, Associate Judges.
Appellants, William and Peggy Brooks, listed a furnished rooming house, owned by them, for sale with appellee Willoughby, a real estate broker. The broker obtained appellees, John and Daisy Jensen, as purchasers of the property. The purchasers entered into a sales contract with the sellers, depositing $1,000 and agreeing to pay the balance of the purchase price at the settlement date. On that day they refused to perform claiming that the sellers and the broker had represented the rooming house to have a monthly income of $300 from rentals when in fact it was disclosed at the settlement proceeding that the income was only $230 per month. They demanded the return of their deposit and upon refusal instituted this suit to recover it on the ground of the alleged fraudulent representation as to the rental income. The sellers and the broker were joined as defendants. The broker filed a cross-claim against the sellers for his commission, alleged that he had obtained a purchaser in accordance with his agreement and that if the sale was not consummated because of misrepresentations the fault was that of the sellers and not his.
The case was tried to a jury which returned a verdict in favor of the purchasers against both the sellers and the broker, and for the broker on his cross-claim against the sellers. On motion of the sellers the court set aside the verdict for the purchasers against the sellers and entered judgment for the sellers.1 The court then entered judgment for the purchasers against the broker, and judgment for the broker against the sellers for the broker's commission.
The sellers have appealed. Their first assignment of error is that the court erred in refusing to grant a directed verdict in their favor against the purchasers. Such a motion was made at the close of plaintiff's evidence and upon its denial appellants proceeded to present evidence on their behalf. They thereby waived benefit of their motion and since the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matter of an Inquiry into Allegations, Etc.
...118 A.2d 917 (1955) (civil); Chong Moe Dan v. Maryland Cas. Co., D.C.Mun.App., 93 A.2d 286, 288 (1952) (civil); Brooks v. Jensen, D.C.Mun.App., 73 A.2d 32, 33 (1950) 17. Although the question of relief is different from the question of mootness, see Concentrated Phosphate Export Ass'n, supr......
-
Hudson v. Ashley
...the trial court, where no appeal is taken from the decision. See Murray v. Requardt, 180 Md. 245, 23 A.2d 697 (1942); Brooks v. Jensen, D.C.Mun.App., 73 A.2d 32 (1950). Each case must be decided on its own record. This court should not be concerned with extraneous matters merely for the pur......
-
Jonathan Woodner Co. v. Adams, 86-1170.
...Reply Brief of Appellant at 3 n. 3. This argument was not raised before the pretrial judge and has thus been waived. See Brooks v. Jensen, 73 A.2d 32, 33 (D.C. 1950) (matters not raised and passed upon in trial court afford no basis for appellate review); Zindler v. Buchanon, 61 A.2d 616, 6......
-
Clark v. Clark, 86-1065.
...record, Mr. Clark's assertion that Mrs. Clark has waived the right to raise this issue on appeal is unavailing. See Brooks v. Jensen, 73 A.2d 32, 33 (D.C.Mun.App. 1950) (with limited exceptions, matters not raised and passed upon in the trial court afford no basis for review on appeal); Zin......