Hohensee v. Manchester, 1424.
| Decision Date | 29 January 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 1424.,1424. |
| Citation | 102 A.2d 461 |
| Parties | HOHENSEE v. MANCHESTER. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Ervin Hohensee, appellant, pro se.
Before CAYTON, Chief Judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.
This case is here on appeal for the second time. Appellant was sued by his landlord for possession for nonpayment of rent. The landlord obtained judgment and on the prior appeal we reversed because of certain irregularities in the trial.1 At the second trial a rather unusual situation developed. It appeared that after judgment in the first trial a writ of restitution had been issued (the tenant had not given a supersedeas bond), the landlord had thereby obtained possession, and no effort had been made by the tenant to regain possession after reversal of the judgment. Because of these facts, the tenant moved before trial for a dismissal on the ground that the case was moot. His position, in his own words, was: "In view of the fact that the defendant does not now have, and for some time has not had, possession of the premises, and plaintiff now has, and for some time has had, possession of the premises, there is no basis for this action and the complaint should be dismissed or summary judgment rendered for the defendant." His motion was denied. When the case was ready to proceed to trial the tenant renewed his motion, stating to the court: "I here and now state I am voluntarily surrendering possession which of course I do not have, and will not prosecute any rights I have to acquire possession, in order to clarify any possibility that the case is not moot." When the court inquired if the tenant was willing to agree that the landlord "is formally entitled to legal possession," the tenant refused to agree, but finally stated that the only reason he did not believe the landlord was entitled to judgment was because she already had possession. Without taking any evidence the court entered judgment for the landlord on the basis of the tenant's statements. The tenant has appealed.
The substance of the tenant's argument on appeal is: (1) That the case should have been dismissed as moot, and (2) that it was error to enter judgment without first having the landlord present her case and giving the tenant an opportunity to present his defense.
The case was not moot. Our reversal of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atkins v. United States, 5786.
...30 App.D.C. 86 (1907); Smith v. Worksman, D.C.Mun. App., 99 A.2d 712 (1953). Appellee contends, citing our decision in Hohensee v. Manchester, D.C.Mun.App., 102 A.2d 461, cert. denied, 348 U.S. 864, 75 S.Ct. 89, 99 L.Ed. 681 (1954), that a justiciable issue remained at the trial in the inst......
-
Papageorge v. Banks
...or benefits of a rental unit within a housing accommodation[.]” D.C.Code § 42–3401.03(17) (2012 Repl.). 15.See Hohensee v. Manchester, 102 A.2d 461, 462 (D.C.1954). 16. The record indicates that Banks applied in the Landlord Tenant Court for an order restoring him to occupancy of his unit a......
-
Walker v. Smith, 83-940.
...the tenant does not voluntarily leave the premises. Zanakis v. Brawner Building, Inc., 377 A.2d 67 (D.C. 1977); see also Hohensee v. Manchester, 102 A.2d 461 (D.C.), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 864, 75 S.Ct. 89, 99 L.Ed. 681 (1954) (case not moot where issue between parties — right to possession......
- Aronow v. Silver