Heitmuller v. Berkow

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Heitmuller v. Berkow

51 A.2d 302, 1947 D.C. App. LEXIS 110

District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided February 6, 1947·No. No. 450·Published

Opinion

CAYTON, Chief Judge.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Municipal .Court awarding plaintiff $210, covering double the amount of excess rent collected by defendant in violation of the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act, (Code 1940, 45 — 1610) together with an attorney’s fee of $50.

The only question on this appeal is whether the claim was barred by the one-year limitation as an action “for a statutory penalty or forfeiture.” That question we have today decided adversely to appellant’s contention in Shenk v. Cohen, D.C.Mun.App., 51 A.2d 298. Consequently, the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

CAYTON, Chief Judge.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Municipal .Court awarding plaintiff $210, covering double the amount of excess rent collected by defendant in violation of the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act, (Code 1940, 45 — 1610) together with an attorney’s fee of $50.

The only question on this appeal is whether the claim was barred by the one-year limitation as an action “for a statutory penalty or forfeiture.” That question we have today decided adversely to appellant’s contention in Shenk v. Cohen, D.C.Mun.App., 51 A.2d 298. Consequently, the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Heitmuller v. Berkow, 51 A.2d 302, 1947 D.C. App. LEXIS 110 (D.C. 1947).

Pincite

51 A.2d 302 (Heitmuller v. Berkow) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related