Rosen v. Cain Cain v. Rosen

D.C. Circuit

Rosen v. Cain Cain v. Rosen

211 F.2d 809, 94 U.S. App. D.C. 72, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2626

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 15, 1954

Docket11947, 11948

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 211 F.2d 809 (Rosen v. Cain Cain v. Rosen) 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

Rosen v. Cain Cain v. Rosen, 211 F.2d 809, 94 U.S. App. D.C. 72, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2626 (D.C. Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellees in No. 11,947 sued for specific performance of a contract with the appellant by the terms of which the latter agreed to sell them a “proprietary lease” on a unit in a co-operative apartment house owned and operated by a corporation which he controlled.

Appellant resisted on the ground that a condition precedent — approval of the purchasers by the corporation’s directors — had not been met. It appeared, however, that, at or about the same time, he had sold to the female appellee a lease on an adjoining apartment without board approval. He said, “* * * I thought I knew enough of Mrs. Cain to approve her without the board *

The District Court correctly concluded that appellant’s defense was based on an insubstantial technicality. The corpora- *810 ¿ion was his alter egó. The judgment decreeing specific performánce is affirmed.

The second appeal, No. 11,948, is from the trial court’s refusal to give the purchasers judgment against Rosen for their" counsel fee. We cannot say this refusal was an abuse of discretion.

Affirmed on both appeals.

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