U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1919

Groot v. Reilly

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided December 1, 1919 · Smyth

266 F. 1008; 49 App. D.C. 388; 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 2021

Counsel

W. C. Prentiss, of Washington, D. C., for appellant., M. N. Richardson and E. L. Wilson, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Smith v. Worksman (D.C. 1953)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

SMYTH, Chief Justice.

Appellee brought action against appellant to recover possession of certain premises. She was defeated in the municipal court. On appeal to the Supreme- Court she prevailed.

*1009It appeared from her affidavit of merit, filed under rule 19, that the lease under which appellant held possession had expired and that the required notice to quit had been given before the institution of the action in the municipal court. This appellant did not deny in her affidavit of defense, but she set up certain matters on the assumption that under the Saulsbury Resolution (40 Stat. 593) they justified her in retaining possession. This was her only defense. As we have held that resohition to be unconstitutional (Willson v. McDonnell, 49 App. D. C. 280, 265 Fed. 432), her position is untenable.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.