U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1953

Jacobsen v. Sweeney

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided March 17, 1953 · No. 11445 · Curtam, Clark, Proctor, Fahy

202 F.2d 461 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Jeff Busby, Washington, D. C., with whom Jeff Busby, Jr,, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant-., William T. Hannan, Washington, D. C, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

1330 Connecticut Avenue, Inc. v. District of Columbia Zoning Commission (D.C. 1995)
Jettmar v. New 5510, Inc. (In re New 5510, Inc.) (District Court, District of Columbia 1990)
Landow v. Georgetown-Inland West Corp. (D.C. 1982)
Feltman v. Sarbov (D.C. 1976)
Camalier & Buckley-Madison, Inc. v. The Madison Hotel, Inc. (D.C. Cir. 1975)
Easter v. Kass-Berger, Inc. (D.C. 1956)
Gulf Motors, Inc. v. Fenner (D.C. 1955)

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

PER CURTAM.

This appeal grows out of a suit for damages for breach of a written contract for sale of a business and a leasehold of .premises upon which the business was conducted. The leasehold, being for a term of years, was an estate or interest in land, a chattel real. D.C.Code § 45-801, 804 (1951). Accordingly, the agreement of sale, covering an interest in land, required a writing signed by the party to be charged. D.C.Code § 12-302 (1951).

An important question is whether an oral agreement of the parties extending the time for performance of the contract, covered by the writing, is valid and binding upon the vendee (appellant), who failed to perform within the extended period. Judge Keech of the District Court upon the evidence ruled that time was not of the essence of the contract; that the original performance date could be legally waived .before breach, and was so waived by the oral understanding of the parties. Therefore, he held the vendee liable for his failure to perform within the extended time. We agree with the ruling of Judge Keech on this and other points raised on this appeal, and for a full and detailed understanding thereof refer to his opinion, Sweeney v. Jacobsen, D.C., 1952, 103 F.Supp. 393.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.