Superior Motor Cars, Inc. v. Didden

D.C. Circuit

Superior Motor Cars, Inc. v. Didden

144 F.2d 369, 79 U.S. App. D.C. 206, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2840

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJuly 24, 1944

DocketNo. 8691

StatusPublished

This text of 144 F.2d 369 (Superior Motor Cars, Inc. v. Didden) 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

Superior Motor Cars, Inc. v. Didden, 144 F.2d 369, 79 U.S. App. D.C. 206, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2840 (D.C. Cir. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court dismissing a complaint because of failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted. The case arises out of a lease of certain business property in the City of Washington for the period of a year, with an option to renew on thirty days’ written notice before the expiration of the term. Tenant failed to give any notice of intention to renew and the landlord instituted repossession proceedings in the Municipal Court. The present action was begun in the United States District Court by the tenant against the landlord for specific performance of the contract. The ground for relief is that at the time for exercising the option Glassman, President of appellant, was in the penitentiary and his attorney was sick.

We have examined the record carefully and are of opinion that the lower court was correct in dismissing the proceedings. See Clayman v. Totten, 56 App.D.C. 115, 10 F.2d 910.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court dismissing a complaint because of failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted. The case arises out of a lease of certain business property in the City of Washington for the period of a year, with an option to renew on thirty days’ written notice before the expiration of the term. Tenant failed to give any notice of intention to renew and the landlord instituted repossession proceedings in the Municipal Court. The present action was begun in the United States District Court by the tenant against the landlord for specific performance of the contract. The ground for relief is that at the time for exercising the option Glassman, President of appellant, was in the penitentiary and his attorney was sick.

We have examined the record carefully and are of opinion that the lower court was correct in dismissing the proceedings. See Clayman v. Totten, 56 App.D.C. 115, 10 F.2d 910.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 F.2d 369, 79 U.S. App. D.C. 206, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/superior-motor-cars-inc-v-didden-cadc-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack