Slater v. Berlin, 1088.
| Decision Date | 29 August 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 1089.,No. 1088.,1088.,1089. |
| Citation | 83 A.2d 228 |
| Parties | SLATER v. BERLIN et al. BERLIN v. SLATER et al. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Ralph F. Berlow, Washington, D. C., for appellant and cross-appellee Joseph E. Slater.
Rolland G. Lamensdorf, Washington, D. C., for appellee and cross-appellant Eugene A. Berlin.
Robert H. McNeill, Washington, D. C., for appellees Wickersham, Peterson, Home Indemnity Ins. Co., and Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America.
Before CAYTON, Chief Judge, and HOOD and CLAGETT, Associate Judges.
Slater sued Berlin for an alleged breach by Berlin of a contract to buy a house from Slater. Berlin denied liability, alleging he was induced to sign the contract by misrepresentations made to him by an agent of Wickersham, the broker in the transaction. Berlin also filed a counterclaim against Slater for return of the cash deposit made by him when the contract was signed. Berlin also filed a third-party complaint against Wickersham and Peterson, the employee of Wickersham, for return of the deposit, and joined as defendants to this claim Home Indemnity Insurance Company and Indemnity Insurance. Company of North America, the sureties on the bonds of the broker and his agent. Slater also filed a cross-claim against the broker, his agent, and the sureties.
At trial before court and jury the opening statement in behalf of Slater disclosed that he had entered into a contract to buy the property in question from the Carpenters for $22,500; that almost immediately afterwards he learned he was to be transferred to Germany and shortly thereafter entered into a contract to sell the property to Berlin for $24,000; that Wickersham acted as broker in both transactions; that within a short time Berlin notified Slater that he would not complete the contract; that after being so notified he (Slater) did not complete his contract with the Carpenters and they declared his deposit of $500 forfeited. On this statement Berlin moved for a directed verdict. After some argument the court announced it would "have to have some further opening statements." Berlin's counsel then stated that Berlin had wished to buy the Carpenter house and after learning that Slater had a contract to purchase it, Berlin told Peterson that he would pay $500 for "the contract" and later signed a contract to buy from Slater for $24,000, relying on Peterson's statement that Slater was paying $23,500; that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hudson v. Ashley
...to develop their evidence by testimony and to have the case submitted to the jury under proper instructions. [Slater v. Berlin, D.C.Mun.App., 83 A.2d 228, 229 (1951).] Viewing appellant's allegations in their proper light, and applying that test to this case, we conclude the trial court fai......
-
Slater v. Berlin, 1284.
...rule that the direction of verdicts was improper because there were questions of fact to be developed by testimony. Slater v. Berlin, D.C.Mun.App., 83 A.2d 228. At the second trial testimony was taken and the case was submitted to the jury on two special interrogatories which we shall discu......
-
Hentz v. Cbi-Fairmac Corp.
...in their pleadings. Directing a verdict on an opening statement is an extreme measure, to be invoked most cautiously. Slater v. Berlin, D.C.Mun.App., 83 A.2d 228 (1951). In this regard, the Supreme Court has recognized that a counsel's opening statement is intended to do no more than inform......
-
Morgan v. Suburban Nat. Bank of Silver Spring, Md., 1235.
...doubt, the parties are entitled to develop their case by testimony.1 Reversed with instructions to award a new trial. 1. Slater v. Berlin, D.C.Mun.App., 83 A. 2d 228; DeGrazia v. Anderson, D.C. Mun.App., 62 A.2d 194; Mitchell v. David, D.C.Mun.App., 51 A.2d ...