Legal Opinion
Gee How Oak Tin Ass'n v. Potomac Chemicals Corp.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided December 16, 1954No. 1569PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
QUINN, Associate Judge.
The -question before us is whether a judgment against appellant should have been set aside by the lower court. The facts are these:
Appellee by verified complaint sued appellant for merchandise sold and delivered. An answer was filed denying the claim. The case was set for trial on June 25, 1954. On that date counsel for appellant orally moved for a continuance on the ground that a defense witness was absent. The continuance was opposed by counsel for appel-lee on the ground that Municipal Court rule 40 (i) (2) 1 had not been complied with. The trial court denied the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. L. Bucki & Son Lumber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Harrah v. MorgenthauDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1937
- Klein v. RappaportDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1952
3Cited by4 opinions
- D. C. Transit System, Inc. v. YoungDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1972
- District of Columbia v. J.R.M.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1987
- Holland v. Capital Transit Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1955
- Whitaker v. United Securities Corp.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1969