*1 et DIATZ al. SOBEL v.
Nо. Appeals, United States Court Circuit. District Columbia Argued March April 12, 1951. Decided Kamerow,
Stanley C., Washington, H. D. Kamerow, Washing- with whom Allan L. ton, C., brief, appel- D. on the lant. C., Vogеl, Washington,
Howard D. CLARK, PROCTOR, Before Judges. Circuit CLARK, Judge. was, brought against ap-
This action pellant Washington Technical School, Inc., twenty-six to recover hundred uriexpired fifty dollars for term assigned a lease had been under appellant. Counsel for a verdict both after moved directed presentation case and at thе termination entire case. submitted denied both and trial court which rendered a verdict case to the fifty twenty-six dollars in hundred ap- against Washington pellant but not Sсhool, Inc. Technical appellant moved the alternative new trial obstante veredicto. judgment non new trial the motion Court overruled appellant’s motion
27
failed
law,
opponent
of the movant
appeal to
the
veredicto. On
ment non obstante
therefore, a verdict
to make a case
Appeals the
Municipal
the
Court
di-
been
in movant’s
have
reversed
favor should
was
Court
ment of the
applied to a
test
the rected.’ Thus the
to bе
jury in
the
and
verdict of
the
same
for
judgment
motion
n. o. v.
appellees
reinstated.
was ordered
as
to a
directed verdict.”
motion for
first contends
apрellant
The
Scott,
To the same effect
Nickel v.
is
to the
appellees
by the
appeal
the
taken
1948,
206 which
Mun.App.D.C.
59 A.2d
Mu
the
from
Appeals
Court
Duncan,
Montgomery
v.
cites
Ward & Co.
non-appeal-
from a
nicipal
taken
was
Court
189,
L.Ed.
61
85
U.S.
S.Ct.
consequently
able
and
the
order
Wilson, supra.
McSweeny
v.
jurisdiction
no
had
to order a reversal
apparent
case or
It
determine
review the
is
that we must
whether,
stated the
viewing
the
Hood
facts in the
same.
the
and since we
applicable
point,
light
appellee,
law
the
the
most favorable to
law,
materially
appellee failed,
it
make
feel we
add
to we
as a matter of
can
adopt
“Appellee [appellant
whether,
his conclusion.
out a case for
there-
appeal
fore, a
has moved to dismiss the
verdict in the movant’s favor should
here]
Munic
trial
Obviously,
the
to the
have been
the
directed.
Jfrom
judge
ipal
because the notice
n. o. v.
Appеals]
granted
who
appeal
appeal
appellant
is from did not think that the
states
had failed
case,
November,
to make
day
because he
order
out
denied
23rd
order
for
denying
a motion motions
a directed verdict both after
appellee
rehearing
presented
had
judgment.
motion for
his case and
'Generally
at
denying
an order
the end of the trial.
a motion for
rehearing, motion
a
for a new trial
other
When
look at
we
the evidence
aрpellant
like order
[as
contends]
testimony
quite
we
appealable
ap
not an
order. The notice
judge
trial
directed verdict
peal
specified
grant
should have
the order
granted,
should not have been
and conse
ing
appealed
judgment as the order
quently
feel
we
n. o. v.
denying
rehearing.
insteаd of the order
granted.
should
only
not have been
The
However
appeal
obvious that the
it
ap
element
case which the
intended
be from
the ordеr granting
pellant alleges
proved
not
is that the
appellee [appellant
con
here]
appellees
assign
did
consent
that,
cedes
bеcause the motion for rehear
ment of the
and therefore there
ing
for appealing,
extended
time
existed no
of contract. Mrs. Diatz
timely
notice was
filed
as to
even
appellees,
who is one of the
and her rental
Under
these
order.
circumstances we
agent,
Junsch,
original lessee,
testi
may
appeal
treat
notice
fied
assumed the lease.
judgment.
Safeway
from the
v.
Stores
Diatz,
Mrs.
also
gave
testified that she
Coe,
U.S.App.D.C.
136 F.2d
her
assignment,
consеnt
to the
Indemnity