Legal Opinion
Thurston v. Anderson
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided December 14, 1944No. 235PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RICHARDSON, Chief Judge.
The adversary parties are respectively vendor and purchaser under a contract of sale of the real estate involved. A dispute arose as to the construction of the contract. The purchaser had entered into possession, and suit to regain possession was filed by Thurston, the vendor, under the statute giving the Municipal Court for the District of Columbia jurisdiction of actions of forcible entry and detainer.1
A motion to dismiss was denied. Be: cause of the pendency of a suit for specific performance of the contract, brought in the District Court of the United States for…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Willis v. Eastern Trust & Banking Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Fults v. . MunroNew York Court of Appeals · 1911
- Commonwealth v. DudleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Shaw v. HoffmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
- Smith v. ReederOregon Supreme Court · 1892
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Pernell v. Southall RealtySupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Mendes v. JohnsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1978
- Shapiro v. ChristopherCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1952
- Shipley v. MajorDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1945
- Tamamian v. GabbardDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1947
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.