Higgins v. Et Ux.

• Decision Date: 03 September 1948
• Docket Number: No. 631.,631.
• Parties: HIGGINS v. DAIL et ux.
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

61 A.2d 38

HIGGINS

v.DAIL et ux.

No. 631.

Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Sept. 3, 1948.

Appeal from the Municipal Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Division.

Action by Catherine Higgins against Charles L. Dail and wife for wrongful eviction from leased premises. From a judgment on a jury's verdict awarding plaintiff only $1 as damages, she appeals.

Reversed with instructions to grant a new trial.

Frank R. Long, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Herman Miller, of Washington, D. C., for appellees.

Before CAYTON, Chief Judge, and HOOD and CLAGETT, Associate Judges.

HOOD, Associate Judge.

Appellant, plaintiff below, was a tenant of certain dwelling property. She occupied the first floor and sublet the upper floor. Appellee Charles L. Dail bought the property and notified appellant that he desired possession for his own use. Appellant promised to vacate as soon as she found other quarters. Thereafter the parties agreed that Dail and his wife should move into the upper floor, which had been vacated by the subtenant; that appellant should continue to occupy the first floor until she found another place to live, and that in the meantime she would not be required to pay rent. This arrangement was put into effect and continued for sometime. Dail often asked when appellant was going to move but never received a definite answer. Dissension arose between the parties and, according to appellant, appellees conducted themselves so as to interfere with her occupancy of the first floor and finally one night at a late hour made demand that she move, the demand being made in such manner and under such circumstances that appellant and her mother, who lived with her, were forced immediately to leave the premises. She brought this action for a wrongful eviction and the jury awarded her $1. The trial court refused to set aside the verdict and ordered judgment thereon. From that judgment she has appealed.

Appellant's first assignment of error is that she was not allowed to amend her complaint. The record shows neither a request by appellant to amend nor a denial by the court of such request. We therefore cannot consider this assignment.

The second assignment relates to the trial court's refusal to allow the jury to consider two items of claimed special damages. According to appellant's brief, one of the items was some coal left on the premises by appellant. However, the record discloses no evidence regarding this item and we cannot consider it. The other item was cost of drayage and storage of appellant's furniture. The record shows that appellant left her furniture on the premises although it was not withheld from her, that she retained her key to the premises and went there on numerous occasions, and that finally she removed the furniture four months after the alleged eviction took place. The record does not show why appellant removed the furniture at the time she did so, why it was placed in storage or how long it was kept in storage. Under these circumstances, we think that the cost of drayage and storage was not a proper item of damage arising from an eviction four months prior thereto.

The next assignment relates...