American Storage Co. v. Briggs

56 A.2d 557, 1948 D.C. App. LEXIS 124
CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 6, 1948
DocketNo. 445
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 56 A.2d 557 (American Storage Co. v. Briggs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
American Storage Co. v. Briggs, 56 A.2d 557, 1948 D.C. App. LEXIS 124 (D.C. 1948).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This'casé is-before us on application for appeal from a judgment of the Small Claims and Coriciliation Branch of the Municipal Court. As is well known, there is no right of appeal in Small Claims cases and the statutory method of review is by application to this court. Such application is allowed if any one judge of this court is of the opinion that it should be allowed. Code 1940, Supp. V, 11— 772(a).1

The present application recites that the action was-for damages resulting from a collision between, the automobile of plaintiff (respondent here) and a truck of defendant storage company, and that judgment for $45 was entered in favor of plaintiff. As grounds for appeal the application states merely, “The American Storage Company was denied by the court the right to present a complete defense.” _ The applicant does not state what the evidence for either party was, what defense was interposed, or any facts to support the bald conclusion that the court denied the defendant the right to present a complete defense.

We must repeat what we said earlier in a similar situation. Ionescue v. Dettmers, D.C.Mun.App., 53 A.2d 287. There we stated: “The judges :of this court cannot consider intelligently an application unless it shows sufficiently the error alleged to have occurred in the course of the trial. Generally applications are allowed only where there is a showing of apparent error or a question of law which has not been, but should be, decided by this court.”

The application before us utterly fails to reveal any error, apparent or otherwise. To tell us merely that the court denied the defendant the right to present a complete defense is really to tell us nothing. There is not even an attempt to comply with our Rule 28 which provides that the application “shall, contain a sufficient recital of the proceedings and evidence, reasonably [558]*558to present the ruling or rulings sought to be reviewed.” The application must be denied.

Application denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Karath v. Generalis
277 A.2d 650 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
56 A.2d 557, 1948 D.C. App. LEXIS 124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-storage-co-v-briggs-dc-1948.