Levene v. Oliver

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Levene v. Oliver

158 A.2d 324, 1960 D.C. App. LEXIS 166

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 26, 1960

Docket2490

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 158 A.2d 324 (Levene v. Oliver) 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

Levene v. Oliver, 158 A.2d 324, 1960 D.C. App. LEXIS 166 (D.C. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

ROVER, Chief Judge.

Appellant sued for the amount allegedly due him for services rendered the appel-lees, pursuant to a written contract, in adjusting a fire loss to a building and its contents owned by the latter. At the end of the appellant’s case, the court granted appellees’ motion to dismiss, denied appellant’s motion for a new trial, and entered a judgment for appellees. While there has been filed here a transcript of the argument on the motion to dismiss and the motion for a new trial, appellant has failed to file either a statement of proceedings and evidence or a transcript of the trial testimony [our Rule 21(f)],

The court in granting the motion to dismiss said:

“ * * * I am going to dismiss this case on one ground and one ground only * * * that this contract is violative of the public policy of the District of Columbia, because it authorizes this man [appellant] to be paid for practicing law when he doesn’t have a license to do so.”

In Courembis v. Morfessis, D.C.Mun.App., 143 A.2d 517, 518, we said:

“We have stated time and again that it is incumbent on the party seeking reversal to furnish this court with a sufficient record so that we may be able to pass on the errors of law alleged.” 1

*325 We have no way of determining whether the court was correct or not in view of the failure of appellant to furnish us with a proper record. We accordingly have no discretion except to affirm.

It is so ordered.

1

. Cf. Meredith v. Fitzgerald, D.C.Mun.App., 102 A.2d 306; Wilkins v. Woodruff, D.C. Mun.App., 74 A.2d 59.

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

ROVER, Chief Judge.

Appellant sued for the amount allegedly due him for services rendered the appel-lees, pursuant to a written contract, in adjusting a fire loss to a building and its contents owned by the latter. At the end of the appellant’s case, the court granted appellees’ motion to dismiss, denied appellant’s motion for a new trial, and entered a judgment for appellees. While there has been filed here a transcript of the argument on the motion to dismiss and the motion for a new trial, appellant has failed to file either a statement of proceedings and evidence or a transcript of the trial testimony [our Rule 21(f)],

The court in granting the motion to dismiss said:

“ * * * I am going to dismiss this case on one ground and one ground only * * * that this contract is violative of the public policy of the District of Columbia, because it authorizes this man [appellant] to be paid for practicing law when he doesn’t have a license to do so.”

In Courembis v. Morfessis, D.C.Mun.App., 143 A.2d 517, 518, we said:

“We have stated time and again that it is incumbent on the party seeking reversal to furnish this court with a sufficient record so that we may be able to pass on the errors of law alleged.” 1

*325 We have no way of determining whether the court was correct or not in view of the failure of appellant to furnish us with a proper record. We accordingly have no discretion except to affirm.

It is so ordered.

1

. Cf. Meredith v. Fitzgerald, D.C.Mun.App., 102 A.2d 306; Wilkins v. Woodruff, D.C. Mun.App., 74 A.2d 59.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.2d 324, 1960 D.C. App. LEXIS 166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levene-v-oliver-dc-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack