Hohensee v. Manchester

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Hohensee v. Manchester

99 A.2d 86, 1953 D.C. App. LEXIS 164

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 20, 1953

DocketNo. 1355

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 99 A.2d 86 (Hohensee v. Manchester) 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

Hohensee v. Manchester, 99 A.2d 86, 1953 D.C. App. LEXIS 164 (D.C. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A tenant appeals from a judgment for possession rendered against him for nonpayment of rent. Because the statement of proceedings and evidence, approved over the objections of the tenant, is so lacking in detail, we have examined the original file of the trial court. 'It appears that after both parties had testified, the court continued the case and requested the parties “to produce whatever records they had of rental payments.” Thereafter affidavits were filed by the landlord and others on her behalf. Her affidavit stated in detail her claim as to what rent payments had been made and referred to her “book of original entry.” The other affidavits stated that copies of letters attached to the affidavits were copies of letters mailed to the tenant. Some time after the filing of these affidavits a finding was entered in favor of the landlord.

It thus appears that this case was tried partly on affidavits and we know of no authority for such procedure in the absence of consent of the parties. The record discloses no such consent.

Reversed with instructions to grant a new trial.

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

PER CURIAM.

A tenant appeals from a judgment for possession rendered against him for nonpayment of rent. Because the statement of proceedings and evidence, approved over the objections of the tenant, is so lacking in detail, we have examined the original file of the trial court. 'It appears that after both parties had testified, the court continued the case and requested the parties “to produce whatever records they had of rental payments.” Thereafter affidavits were filed by the landlord and others on her behalf. Her affidavit stated in detail her claim as to what rent payments had been made and referred to her “book of original entry.” The other affidavits stated that copies of letters attached to the affidavits were copies of letters mailed to the tenant. Some time after the filing of these affidavits a finding was entered in favor of the landlord.

It thus appears that this case was tried partly on affidavits and we know of no authority for such procedure in the absence of consent of the parties. The record discloses no such consent.

Reversed with instructions to grant a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.2d 86, 1953 D.C. App. LEXIS 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hohensee-v-manchester-dc-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack