Garlin v. Currie

Fifth Circuit

Garlin v. Currie

185 F.2d 401, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3289, 1950 WL 669

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 28, 1950

Docket13138_1

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 185 F.2d 401 (Garlin v. Currie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Garlin v. Currie, 185 F.2d 401, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3289, 1950 WL 669 (5th Cir. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

*402 PER CURIAM.

The suit, brought under Section 205 of •the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, 50 U. S.C.A. Appendix, § 1895, was for $840 for rent overcharges.

The district judge, “being persuaded”, as he says, “by the authority of Fields v. Washington, 3 Cir., 173 F.2d 701”, and noticing “ex mero mo tu its lack of jurisdiction”, dismissed the cause because the amount in controversy was less than $3,000.

Plaintiff, appealing, is here insisting that the district judge erred. In addition to presenting supporting reasons for his view, he cites, as better reason, Adler v. Northern Hotel Co., 7 Cir., 175 F.2d 619, writ of certiorari denied, Arlington, Inc., v. Mayer, 339 U.S. 965, 70 S.Ct. 1000, and many district court cases taking a view contrary to that expressed in the Fields case.

We agree with appellant. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further and not inconsistent proceedings.

BORAH, Circuit Judge.

I dissent.

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

*402 PER CURIAM.

The suit, brought under Section 205 of •the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, 50 U. S.C.A. Appendix, § 1895, was for $840 for rent overcharges.

The district judge, “being persuaded”, as he says, “by the authority of Fields v. Washington, 3 Cir., 173 F.2d 701”, and noticing “ex mero mo tu its lack of jurisdiction”, dismissed the cause because the amount in controversy was less than $3,000.

Plaintiff, appealing, is here insisting that the district judge erred. In addition to presenting supporting reasons for his view, he cites, as better reason, Adler v. Northern Hotel Co., 7 Cir., 175 F.2d 619, writ of certiorari denied, Arlington, Inc., v. Mayer, 339 U.S. 965, 70 S.Ct. 1000, and many district court cases taking a view contrary to that expressed in the Fields case.

We agree with appellant. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further and not inconsistent proceedings.

BORAH, Circuit Judge.

I dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 F.2d 401, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3289, 1950 WL 669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garlin-v-currie-ca5-1950.

Opinion

I dissent.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack