White v. Hickman

258 F. 963, 49 App. D.C. 63, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1300
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided May 22, 1919·No. No. 3232·Published

Opinion

VAN ORSDRT,, Associate Justice.

Appellees, plaintiffs below, on August 1, 1918, purchased certain premises in the District of Columbia for occupancy as a residence. The purchase was subject to a lease held by defendant which expired September 4, 1918. At the expiration of the lease, this action was brought to recover possession of the premises. From a judgment for plaintiffs, this appeal was taken.

It matters not, either that two of the plaintiffs were in the employ of the government, or that defendant was caring for 11 persons in the employ of the government; since the case is not within the provisions of the Saulsbury Resolution of May 31, 1918. 40 Stat. 593, c. 90. Maxwell v. Brayshaw, 49 App. D. C. -, 258 Fed. 957.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Affirmed.

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

White v. Hickman, 258 F. 963, 49 App. D.C. 63, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1300 (D.C. Cir. 1919).

258 F. 963 (White v. Hickman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Maxwell v. Brayshaw
258 F. 957 (D.C. Circuit, 1919)