White v. Hickman

D.C. Circuit

White v. Hickman

258 F. 963, 49 App. D.C. 63, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1300

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 22, 1919

DocketNo. 3232

StatusPublished

This text of 258 F. 963 (White v. Hickman) 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

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

Pincite

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