Tamamian v. Gabbard, 55 A.2d 513 (1947)
- Citation
- Tamamian v. Gabbard, 55 A.2d 513 (1947)
- Parent Document
- Tamamian v. Gabbard, 55 A.2d 513 (1947)
- Jurisdiction
- DC (municipal)
- Effective Date
- 1947-11-12
Other Sections in This Document (21)
- Tamamian v. Gabbard, 55 A.2d 513 (1947)
- Tamamian v. Gabbard, 55 A.2d 513 (1947)
- Tamamian v. Gabbard, 55 A.2d 513 (1947)
- Tamamian v. Gabbard, 55 A.2d 513 (1947)
- Tamamian v. Gabbard, 55 A.2d 513 (1947)
- Tamamian v. Gabbard, 55 A.2d 513 (1947)
- Tamamian v. Gabbard, 55 A.2d 513 (1947)
- Tamamian v. Gabbard, 55 A.2d 513 (1947)
- Tamamian v. Gabbard, 55 A.2d 513 (1947)
- Tamamian v. Gabbard, 55 A.2d 513 (1947)
- Tamamian v. Gabbard, 55 A.2d 513 (1947)
- Tamamian v. Gabbard, 55 A.2d 513 (1947)
- Tamamian v. Gabbard, 55 A.2d 513 (1947)
- Tamamian v. Gabbard, 55 A.2d 513 (1947)
- Tamamian v. Gabbard, 55 A.2d 513 (1947)
- Tamamian v. Gabbard, 55 A.2d 513 (1947)
- Tamamian v. Gabbard, 55 A.2d 513 (1947)
- Tamamian v. Gabbard, 55 A.2d 513 (1947)
- Tamamian v. Gabbard, 55 A.2d 513 (1947)
- Tamamian v. Gabbard, 55 A.2d 513 (1947)
- Tamamian v. Gabbard, 55 A.2d 513 (1947)
Full Text
1,035 charsPlaintiff argues here that the jury must have concluded that he owed no rent at the time he was locked out because he had previously paid in excess of the rent ceiling a sum far larger than that in dispute. This argument is based on two orders of the Rent Administrator of July 17 and July 24, 1944, establishing daily, weekly and monthly rates for plaintiff’s room. It is not at all clear from the record that plaintiff made overpayments, or, if so, how much. Plaintiff asserts he overpaid $90 in a year’s time, but obviously this figure cannot be accepted since plaintiff occupied the room less than three months under defendants’ operation of the house. Aside from the foregoing, it is plain that the court did not submit to the jury the disputed question of arrearage. The jury were instructed to disregard the issue of whether or not plaintiff owed rent. We must accept the case as one in which the jury could have found plaintiff delinquent in his rent but were foreclosed by the court’s instructions from considering that issue.