TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

James v. Greenberg

James v. Greenberg, 55 A.2d 727 (D.C. 1947)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District of Columbia Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 6, 1947
Docket
No. 555
Judges
Cayton, Clagett, Hood
Citations
55 A.2d 7271947 D.C. App. LEXIS 188

Opinion of the Court — Cayton

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

CAYTON, Chief Judge.

This was a landlord and tenant case for possession of commercial property. In the caption of the complaint as originally filed the plaintiff’s name was given as Moses Goldberg. The complaint was sworn to by H. Miller as agent for plaintiff. On the day of trial the trial court gave leave to amend by inserting the name Maurice A. Greenberg as plaintiff. The amendment was accomplished by inserting the new name in the caption of the complaint, accompanied by the written notation “amended 7-7-47” followed by the judge’s initials. The case proceeded to trial and resulted in judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals, assigning as error the order of amendment.

The record fails to show that appellant offered any objection to the amendment being made. There is no statement of proceedings and evidence before us, appellant having submitted none to the trial court and having elected to bring the case here on the pleadings alone. Neither from these nor from the rest of the record is it shown that any objection to the amendment was offered in the trial court.

We have repeatedly given warning that an appellant has the burden of showing error; 1 that it is his primary duty to present a record covering the errors alleged and the questions to be argued on appeal; 2 that it must be shown that objections were made timely in the trial court and cannot be made here for the first time; 3 that when this necessitates a statement of proceedings and evidence such must be brought up to this court ; 4 and that error cannot be predicated upon that which does not appear in the record. 5

These warnings seem to have been overlooked in making up the record in this case. Thus we have a charge of error with nothing to support it. Consequently, we have no alternative except to order an affirmance.

Affirmed.

Hoover v. Babcock, D.C.Mun.App., 53 A.2d 591 ; Mitchell v. Ralph D. Cohn, D.C.Mun.App., 52 A.2d 631 ; Barrett v. Adkins Furniture Co., D.C.Mun.App., 43 A. 2d 44 .

Craig v. Heil, D.C.Mun.App., 47 A.2d 871 ; Geiger v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co., D.C.Mun.App., 47 A.2d 98 ; Barrett v. Adkins Furniture Co., supra.

Crowder v. Lackey, D.C.Mun.App., 46 A.2d 699 ; Watwood v. Potomac Chemical Co., D.C.Mun.App., 42 A.2d 728 ; Collins v. United States, D.C.Mun.App., 41 A.2d 515 ; Lee v. United States, D.C. Mun.App., 40 A.2d 250 ; Shapiro v. Vautier, D.C.Mun.App., 36 A.2d 349 ; District Hauling & Construction Co. v. Argerakis, D.C.Mun.App., 34 A.2d 31 ; Meyer v. Capitol Transit Co., D.C.Mun. App., 32 A.2d 392 .

Moncure v. Curry, D.C.Mun.App., 42 A.2d 143 .

Levy v. Bryce, D.C.Mun.App., 46 A.2d 765 ; Heslop v. Grahame, D.C.Mun.App., 31 A.2d 856 .

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1949: 11950: 11952: 21962: 21969: 119492026peak 1952 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. D. C. Transit System, Inc. v. Milton250 A.2d 549 (D.C. 1969)
  2. Slater v. Cannon93 A.2d 92 (D.C. 1952)
  3. Compton v. Atwell86 A.2d 623 (D.C. 1952)
  4. Baer v. District of Columbia182 A.2d 839 (D.C. 1962)
  5. Wood v. United States183 A.2d 563 (D.C. 1962)
  6. Brown v. Haas72 A.2d 39 (D.C. 1950)

Most recent

  1. D. C. Transit System, Inc. v. Milton250 A.2d 549 (D.C. 1969)
  2. Wood v. United States183 A.2d 563 (D.C. 1962)
  3. Baer v. District of Columbia182 A.2d 839 (D.C. 1962)
  4. Slater v. Cannon93 A.2d 92 (D.C. 1952)
  5. Compton v. Atwell86 A.2d 623 (D.C. 1952)
  6. Brown v. Haas72 A.2d 39 (D.C. 1950)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 15

DepthCaseCited by
Dist. Hauling & Constr. Co. v. Argerakis, 34 A.2d 31 (D.C. 1943) 28
Meyer v. Capital Transit Co., 32 A.2d 392 (D.C. 1943) 19
Craig v. Heil, 47 A.2d 871 (D.C. 1946) 15
Collins v. United States, 41 A.2d 515 (D.C. 1945) 12
Watwood v. Potomac Chem. Co., 42 A.2d 728 (D.C. 1945) 11
Levy v. Bryce, 46 A.2d 765 (D.C. 1946) 10
Mitchell v. Ralph D. Cohn, Inc., 52 A.2d 631 (D.C. 1947) 10
Heslop v. Robert A. Grahame, Inc., 31 A.2d 856 (D.C. 1942) 9
Barrett v. Adkins Furniture Co., 43 A.2d 44 (D.C. 1945) 9
Shapiro v. Vautier, 36 A.2d 349 (D.C. 1944) 8
Moncure v. Curry, 42 A.2d 143 (D.C. 1945) 8
Hoover v. Babcock, 53 A.2d 591 (D.C. 1947) 7
Lee v. United States, 40 A.2d 250 (D.C. 1944) 4
Crowder v. Lackey, 46 A.2d 699 (D.C. 1946) 4
Geiger v. Mass. Bonding & Ins., 47 A.2d 98 (D.C. 1946) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list