Cooper v. Ford

Citation77 N.E.2d 124,118 Ind.App. 108
Decision Date04 February 1948
Docket NumberNo. 17667.,17667.
PartiesCOOPER et al. v. FORD.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

118 Ind.App. 108
77 N.E.2d 124

COOPER et al.
v.
FORD.

No. 17667.

Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.

Feb. 4, 1948.


Appeal from Lake Circuit Court; Felix A. Kaul, Judge.

Action by Jack Ford against Arthur B. Cooper and another to recover treble the amount of alleged overcharges in rent. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

[77 N.E.2d 124]

Harry Long, of Gary, for appellants.

Stanton & Stanton and James F. Pace, all of Gary, for appellee.


HAMILTON, Judge.

This was an action instituted by appellee against appellants in the Lake Circuit Court to recover the statutory penalty of three times the amount of rent charged by appellants as landlords of and from appellee as tenant in excess of the maximum rental value fixed by the office of price administration of the United States for the area in which the city of Gary is situated, as authorized by the provisions of the Emergency Price Control Act of Congress enacted in 1942, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 901 et seq.

The issues were submitted for trial to a jury, which returned its verdict in favor of appellee and against both appellants and assessing appellee's damages in the sum of

[77 N.E.2d 125]

$270 and $150 attorney's fees. Judgment was rendered upon the verdict and, upon the overruling of appellants' motion for a new trial, this appeal was perfected.

The first error assigned is the overruling of appellants' motion for a new trial, assigning the following reasons therefor: (a) the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence; and (b) the verdict of the jury is contrary to law. All of the other specifications of the motion for a new trial have been waived by a failure to present the same under the ‘Points and Authorities' of appellants' brief. Moore v. Ohl, 1917, 65 Ind.App. 691, 693, 116 N.E. 9;Vandalia Coal Co. v. Butler, 1918, 68 Ind.App. 245, 119 N.E. 34;Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Lightheiser, 1907, 168 Ind. 438, 467, 78 N.E. 1033;Michael v. State, 1912, 178 Ind. 676, 678, 99 N.E. 788.

In support of their contention that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence, appellants insist that appellee failed to discharge the burden resting upon him to prove the following necessary and essential facts before he was entitled to recover in this action, to wit: 1. That the rental board fixed the rental of the property owned by the defendants (appellants) and occupied by the plaintiff (appellee). 2. That the defendants charged and received from the plaintiff an amount in excess of the rental value established by the rental board. 3. The burden was upon the plaintiff to establish that the property was rented by the defendants to the plaintiff and not to anyone else.

Appellants contend that the evidence discloses that the property was rented by the defendants on or about August 9, 1945, to Harriett Ford, appellee's wife, while appellee was in the armed forces of the United States, and that appellee did not return to live in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT