Case ID: f_277/html/0585-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "VAN ORSDER, Associate Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

KARRICK v. COLMAN.
    (Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
    Submitted March 8, 1921.
    Rehearing Granted April 29, 1921.
    Resubmitted October 1, 1921.
    Restored to Calendar for Reargiiment December 2, 1921.
    Resubmitted December 7, 1921.
    Decided January 3, 1922.)
    No. 3461.
    1. Landlord and tenant ©=>200(1%)—Kent la,w is constitutional.
    The constitutionality of the rent law is no longer an open question.
    2. Landlord and tenant ©=>200(1%)—Without evidence before rent commission, it is presumed to support finding.
    Where the record does not contain the evidence produced before the rent commission, it is presumed that the commission’s finding was supported by the testimony.
    Appeal from the Rent Commission of the District of Columbia. Appeal by James D. Karrick against William A. Colman from an order of the rent commission finding appellant guilty of refusing to furnish electric current.
    Decision of the rent commission affirmed.
    other eases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER In all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
    
      C. H. Merillat, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
    Raymond M. Hudson, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
    Chapin Brown, of Washington, D. C., for rent commission.
   VAN ORSDER, Associate Justice.

This appeal is from an order of the rent commission finding appellant guilty of refusing to furnish appellee, a tenant in the Monmouth apartment house, in this city, with electric current for lighting purposes for a period of 12 days, as in his lease he had agreed to do, and fixing reasonable compensation at $150.

The appeal is here to contest the constitutionality of the rent law, but this is no longer an open question. Block v. Hirsh, 256 U. S. 135, 41 Sup. Ct. 458, 65 L. Ed.-. The record does not contain the evidence adduced before the commission; hence it will be presumed that the finding of the commission is supported by the testimony.

The decision is affirmed, with costs.

Affirmed.

' Mr. Justice HITZ, of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, sat in the place of Mr Chief Justice. SMYTH in the hearing and determination of this appeal.