Waters v. McKahan

D.C. Circuit

Waters v. McKahan

39 App. D.C. 18, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 2181

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 6, 1912

DocketNos. 2389, 2390

StatusPublished

This text of 39 App. D.C. 18 (Waters v. McKahan) 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

Waters v. McKahan, 39 App. D.C. 18, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 2181 (D.C. Cir. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court:

These cases are identical with those of Waters v. Pearson, [19]*19No. 2387, and Waters & Moore v. Pearson, No. 2388, just decided, ante, p. JO, except that Mary A. McKahan is the plaintiff and appellee, instead of Pearson. Her action is for half of the five instalments of rent due by the terms of the lease set out in the former cases, and the supplemental contract by which the instalments of rent were divided and made payable to Pearson and McKalian, respectively. The pleas and affidavits are the same substantially.

For the reasons given in the opinion filed in the former cases, the judgment as to Maria Waters, in No. 2389, will be reversed with costs; and as to John O. Waters and Albert L, Moore, in No. 2390, will be affirmed with costs.

No. 2389 Reversed.

No. 2390 Affirmed.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court:

These cases are identical with those of Waters v. Pearson, [19]*19No. 2387, and Waters & Moore v. Pearson, No. 2388, just decided, ante, p. JO, except that Mary A. McKahan is the plaintiff and appellee, instead of Pearson. Her action is for half of the five instalments of rent due by the terms of the lease set out in the former cases, and the supplemental contract by which the instalments of rent were divided and made payable to Pearson and McKalian, respectively. The pleas and affidavits are the same substantially.

For the reasons given in the opinion filed in the former cases, the judgment as to Maria Waters, in No. 2389, will be reversed with costs; and as to John O. Waters and Albert L, Moore, in No. 2390, will be affirmed with costs.

No. 2389 Reversed.

No. 2390 Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 App. D.C. 18, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 2181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waters-v-mckahan-cadc-1912.