Petty v. Rowe, 1253.
| Decision Date | 15 September 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 1253.,1253. |
| Citation | 91 A.2d 331 |
| Parties | PETTY v. ROWE. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Before CAYTON, Chief Judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.
Claiming that his landlord had charged as rent for an apartment more than the amount allowable under the Rent Control Act of 1951, Code 1951, Supp. I, 45-1601, et seq., a tenant sued under said Act for $1340 representing twice the amount of such alleged overcharges. The record recites that after plaintiff had rested his case "defendant moved for a directed verdict" and that the trial judge granted such motion. This appeal followed.
We shall take a moment to point out, as has been done in earlier cases, that in a trial without a jury a "motion for directed verdict" is entirely inappropriate. Taylor v. United Broadcasting Co., D.C. Mun.App., 61 A.2d 480,482, and cases there cited. There we said, We also take occasion to repeat the following language from the opinion in the Taylor case: "In the interest of accuracy and orderly procedure counsel should not ask for `a directed verdict' in a non-jury case and trial judges should refuse to entertain such a motion."
Turning to the merits we note that the complaint alleged that the legal rent for the premises was $35, that being the amount for which the premises rented on January 1, 1941, the freeze date under the Emergency Rent Act as originally enacted, Code 1940, Supp. VII, 45-1601 et seq. This allegation was denied. But the landlord in his answer admitted the allegation that during the period involved tenant had paid and he had received monthly rentals of $55. Thus the only basic fact for plaintiff to prove was the amount of rent which was being paid on the freeze date, there being no contention by either party that the Rent Administrator had established a new ceiling on the premises. To establish that, plaintiff's wife testified that "defendant admitted to her that Dorothy Kyger [a former tenant] occupied said apartment as a tenant from 1937 to 1948 at a rental of $35 per month." Defendant was called to the stand by plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keefer v. Keefer and Johnson, Inc, 9080.
...at 139; Ramos v. Ramos, D.C.App., 291 A.2d 198 (1972); Warner Corporation v. Magazine Realty Co., supra at 480 n. 2; Petty v. Rowe, D.C.Mun.App., 91 A.2d 331, 332 (1952); Rieffer v. Hollingsworth, D.C. Mun.App., 52 A.2d 632, 634 (1947); Merriam v. Sugrue, D.C.Mun.App., 41 A.2d 166 (1945). R......
-
Warner Corporation v. Magazine Realty Co.
...Rule 52(b). * * * 2. Hamilton v. Blankenship, D.C.Mun.App., 173 A.2d 737 (1961); Lo Medico, supra, 158 A.2d at 682 n. 3; Petty v. Rowe, D.C.Mun.App., 91 A.2d 331 (1952). 3. See also Rule 52(b) of the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions, which states in * * * Findings of fact and ......
-
Hamilton v. Blankenship
...the court was required to construe the evidence most favorably to him, as it must do on motions for directed verdict. Petty v. Rowe, D.C.Mun.App. 1952, 91 A.2d 331; Taylor v. United Broadcasting Co., D.C.Mun.App. 1948, 61 A.2d 480; Rieffer v. Hollingsworth, D.C.Mun. App. 1947, 52 A.2d 632; ......
-
District of Columbia v. Tilghman
...trial court found the collision was due to the District's negligence and that finding is sustained here. Affirmed. 1. Petty v. Rowe, D.C.Mun.App. 1952, 91 A.2d 331, 332; Carow v. Bishop, D.C. Mun.App. 1946, 50 A.2d 598, 601; Merriam v. Sugrue, D.C.Mun.App. 1945, 41 A. 2d 166, 167. 2. Ravin ......