Enquist v. Didden
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Hearing on an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia entered upon motion by the plaintiffs for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, in an action to recover for rent alleged to be due and owing under a lease of premises occupied by defendant.
Read the full summary
Hearing on an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia entered upon motion by the plaintiffs for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, in an action to recover for rent alleged to be due and owing under a lease of premises occupied by defendant. The Court in the opinion stated the facts as follows: This appeal is from a judgment for George A. Didden and Mary G. Didden, appellees, plaintiffs below, in the supreme court of the District, under the 73d rule of that court. On the 27th of February, 1912, the defendant and plaintiff’s assignor…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Robb
There was no express warranty as to the safety or construction of the demised premises or any part thereof, and, in the absence of such a warranty, one will not be implied. Howell v. Schneider, 24 App. D. C. 532; Keroes v. Richards, 28 App. D. C. 310, 8 Ann. Cas. 575. In the absence of fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit, a landlord is not responsible to his tenant for injuries resulting from a defective condition of the premises. Doyle v. Union P. R. Co. 147 U. S. 413, 37 L. ed. 223, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 333; Howell v. Schneider, supra. In the present case, the defendant covenanted generally to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Doyle v. Union Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893
- John Morris Co. v. SouthworthIllinois Supreme Court · 1894
3Cited by2 opinions
- Girard Trust Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1947
- Rishty v. R & S PROPERTIES, INC.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1953