Blitz v. Hobbs
This text of 160 A.2d 803 (Blitz v. Hobbs) 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.
Opinion
Hobbs sued Blitz for the value of sodding supplied for some newly built houses. The only issue between them was whether Blitz, when ordering the sodding, acted in his individual capacity and became personally liable, or acted as agent for a disclosed principal (a corporation of which he was president) and incurred no personal liability. On disputed testimony the trial court gave judgment against Blitz and he has appealed.
No question of law is raised. The argument is addressed to the alleged inaccuracy and incredibility of Hobbs’ testimony and the alleged credible testimony of Blitz and his witness. It is apparent that we are asked to judge of the credibility of witnesses and to weigh the evidence. Such functions are not within our province.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
160 A.2d 803, 1960 D.C. App. LEXIS 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blitz-v-hobbs-dc-1960.