Groot v. Reilly

D.C. Circuit

Groot v. Reilly

266 F. 1008, 49 App. D.C. 388, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 2021

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 1, 1919

DocketNo. 3252

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 266 F. 1008 (Groot v. Reilly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Groot v. Reilly, 266 F. 1008, 49 App. D.C. 388, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 2021 (D.C. Cir. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

SMYTH, Chief Justice.

Appellee brought action against appellant to recover possession of certain premises. She was defeated in the municipal court. On appeal to the Supreme- Court she prevailed.

[1009]*1009It appeared from her affidavit of merit, filed under rule 19, that the lease under which appellant held possession had expired and that the required notice to quit had been given before the institution of the action in the municipal court. This appellant did not deny in her affidavit of defense, but she set up certain matters on the assumption that under the Saulsbury Resolution (40 Stat. 593) they justified her in retaining possession. This was her only defense. As we have held that resohition to be unconstitutional (Willson v. McDonnell, 49 App. D. C. 280, 265 Fed. 432), her position is untenable.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Affirmed.

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

SMYTH, Chief Justice.

Appellee brought action against appellant to recover possession of certain premises. She was defeated in the municipal court. On appeal to the Supreme- Court she prevailed.

[1009]*1009It appeared from her affidavit of merit, filed under rule 19, that the lease under which appellant held possession had expired and that the required notice to quit had been given before the institution of the action in the municipal court. This appellant did not deny in her affidavit of defense, but she set up certain matters on the assumption that under the Saulsbury Resolution (40 Stat. 593) they justified her in retaining possession. This was her only defense. As we have held that resohition to be unconstitutional (Willson v. McDonnell, 49 App. D. C. 280, 265 Fed. 432), her position is untenable.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 F. 1008, 49 App. D.C. 388, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 2021, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/groot-v-reilly-cadc-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack