Poole v. Hurlbert
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
HOOD, Associate Judge.
Appellant and her husband were defendants in an action for possession of real estate. By consent of the husband judgment was entered against him. . The wife contested the action and has appealed from judgment against her.
On April 9, after an extension -of time had -been granted, appellant -filed a paper entitled “Brief for Appellant.” On April 22 appellee -filed a motion stating he had received no copy -of appellant’s brief although he had learned from the Clerk of -Court that such brief had been filed on April 9. On April 28 appellant, replying to the -motion, stated…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Bowles v. MarshDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1951
- Phucas v. Washington-Virginia-Maryland Coach Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1950