Seymour v. Terrell, 3742.

• Decision Date: 01 May 1922
• Docket Number: 3742.
• Citation: 280 F. 1019
• Parties: SEYMOUR v. TERRELL, Municipal Court Justice, et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

280 F. 1019

SEYMOUR v. TERRELL, Municipal Court Justice, et al.

No. 3742.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia.

May 1, 1922

Submitted April 7, 1922.

Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

Raymond M. Hudson, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Theodore W. Peyser and George E. Edelin, both of Washington, D.C., for appellees.

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a judgment in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia dismissing appellant's petition for a writ of prohibition.

The material facts are as follows: The appellee, Margaret Murphy, purchased an apartment and served notice upon the tenant to vacate. Thereupon the appellant filed a complaint with the rent commission, challenging the owner's right to possession. This complaint was answered, the same came on for hearing, and on June 30, 1921, the commission dismissed the complaint. From this final order of dismissal no appeal was taken, but, after the expiration of the time within which an appeal might have been taken, appellant attempted an appeal and submitted a so-called 'bill of exceptions' and 'statement of case' to the commission, which the commission declined to entertain. Thereupon the owner instituted a suit for possession in the municipal court, and appellant filed his petition for this writ.

No appeal having been taken within 10 days after the final order of the rent commission dismissing appellant's complaint, the determination of the commission, under the provisions of the Ball Act, became 'final and conclusive' (Killgore v. Zinkhan, 274 F. 140, 51 App.D.C. . . .; Davis v. Cooksey, 274 F. 143, 51 App.D.C. . . .), and the owner, therefore, was within her rights in instituting possessory proceedings in the municipal court.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Affirmed.