Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Mendes v. Johnson, 389 A.2d 781 (1978)

Citation
Mendes v. Johnson, 389 A.2d 781 (1978)
Parent Document
Mendes v. Johnson, 389 A.2d 781 (1978)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
1978-06-13

Other Sections in This Document (216)

Full Text

601 chars
First of all, the salutary purposes of the statute would be totally defeated by acceptance of appellant’s view. One of the motivations for providing a summary pos-sessory action was “to avoid resort to self-help and force, condoned at common law.” Tutt v. Doby, 148 U.S.App.D.C. 171, 174, 459 F.2d 1195, 1198 (1972).13 Yet, as this and earlier cases have demonstrated, resort to self-help will be avoided or obviated only if the statutory remedy is deemed to be exclusive. Since it cannot be presumed that the Congress would do a futile thing, it must have intended to abrogate fully the common law.14