Darden v. Capitol Cab Cooperative Association, Inc.
| Decision Date | 18 September 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 2425.,2425. |
| Citation | 154 A.2d 352 |
| Parties | William C. DARDEN, t/a Durrah and Darden, Appellant, v. CAPITOL CAB COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
George B. Parks, Washington, D. C., Roy Garvin and Robert A. Harris, Washington, D. C., on the brief, for appellee.
Before ROVER, Chief Judge, QUINN, Associate Judge, and CAYTON (Chief judge, Retired) sitting by designation under Code § 11-776(b).
In this suit for an unpaid balance of attorney's fees the question is whether the trial court was right in ruling for defendant at the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence.
Plaintiff claimed that in July 1956 defendant, an incorporated cab association, employed him as its attorney at an agreed monthly fee of $350, and that though he performed the agreed services for some 20 months, he was paid only $300 per month. His testimony, supported in large part by officers of defendant corporation whom he called to the stand, was that he had first sought to have the monthly fee fixed at $375, but later agreed with officers of the corporation to accept $350, and such fee was written into a contract between them, and was also confirmed to plaintiff by official letter authorized by the Board of Directors. Plaintiff testified that some time after he started receiving the lesser monthly payments he made demands for the difference. There was testimony that plaintiff was asked to "hold off a while" because of some difficulty the association was having. There was evidence that the contract had not been approved by the membership as required by the association by-laws, and that at a membership meeting the Board of Directors' recommended approval of the contract had been "either tabled or something; it wasn't passed." But neither the membership nor the board took any steps to notify the plaintiff of such action, as he continued to serve as attorney for the association.
If the decision of the trial court was based on "defendant's motion for a directed verdict" as the minute entry indicates, the ruling was erroneous because plaintiff had clearly made out a prima facie case: he had proved his performance of an agreement and defendant's breach. If (as defendant urges here) the ruling was one granting judgment under Municipal Court Rule 41(b) we think it was erroneous for similar reasons.
We recently had occasion to discuss several decisions dealing with standards governing review of non-jury cases dismissed at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fireison v. Pearson, 84-157.
...sides have presented their evidence." Warner Corp. v. Magazine Realty Co., 255 A.2d 479, 481 (D.C. 1969); Darden v. Capitol Cab Cooperative Association, 154 A.2d 352, 354 (D.C. 1959). The trial court based its dismissal on two alternative grounds. It concluded, first, that the Fireisons had......
-
Fireison v. Pearson
...sides have presented their evidence." Warner Corp. v. Magazine Realty Co., 255 A.2d 479, 481 (D.C. 1969); Darden v. Capitol Cab Cooperative Association, 154 A.2d 352, 354 (D.C. 1959). This is so because a "judgment rendered on all the evidence is likely to be more sound than one rendered on......
-
Bay Gen. Industries, Inc. v. Johnson
...that a dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b) is a drastic remedy, to be sparingly exercised. Darden v. Capitol Cab Cooperative Ass'n, Inc., D.C.Mun.App., 154 A.2d 352, 354 (1959); National Tire Dealers Retreaders Ass'n, Inc. v. G.D.C. Corp., D.C.Mun.App., 147 A.2d 869, 871 We conclude t......
-
Segal v. Calcara, 6012.
...503 (1971) (a Rule 52 disposition); cf. Nation-Wide Check Corp. v. Banks, D.C.App., 260 A.2d 367 (1969); Darden v. Capitol Cab Cooperative Assn., D.C.Mun.App., 154 A.2d 352 (1959). 6. See generally 5 Moore. Federal Practice ¶ 41.13 [2] (2d ed. 7. Evidence concerning the exact legal relation......