The Washington times., 1920-07-03
RENT LAW TAKEN
TO SUPREME COURT
Attorneys File Writ Of Error on
Decision Recently Made by
Appeals Tribunal.

was made necessary by emergencies
growing out of the war, resulting In
rental conditions In Washington dan
gerous to the health OF Government
employees and other persons, and
embarrassing the Govern
ment In the Transaction Of its bust
ness, Attorneys Jesse c. Adkins and
Julius I. Peyser. counsel for Julius
Block In his suit against Louis Hirsh
for possession OF property At el0 II
street northwest. today iled q petit
tion In the Supreme Court OF the
United States for a writ OF error to
the Court OF Appeals which dismissed
Blocks appeal to gain possession Of
the premises In question on the
ground that the Ball act was uncon-
stitutionsL
TWELVE ERRORS CITED.
The petitioners assigned the follow
ing twelve errors:
The Court erred In holding tho
Ball rent act public. $3.50 Congress.
approved October 22. 1919, unoonsti.
tutional.
2-The Court erred in holding that
the business of renting OF real estate
In the District of Columbia Is not af-
fected with a public use.
3-The Court erred in holding that
the business OF renting real estate In
the District of Columbia Is a private
business.
4-The Court erred in holding that
the regulations Of renting real estate
In the District of Columbia was not
a legitimate exercise OF the police
power Of the Congress of the United
States.
6-The Court erred in holding that
a. 10 90 xuh ~ he n mt a
business 10 affected with q public use
Is a judicial function.
6-The Court erred in holding that
the determination of whether or not a
business affected with public In
terest is not a legislative function.
THE Court erred in holding that
the Ball rent act deprives parties liti-
giant Of their right to = trial by jury.
S-The Court erred in holding that
the Ball rent act Is a violation OF the
due process clause Of the Fifth
Amendment Of the Constitution.
9-The Court erred in holding that
the appellant was so affected and
prejudiced by the application of the
Ball rent act that he could attack Its
constitutionality.
lO-The Court erred in not holding
the Ball rent act constitutional and
valid.
1.-THE Court erred in reversing
the judgment OF the Supreme Court OF
the District Of Columbia.
12-The Court erred in not affirm
ing the Judgment Of the Supreme
Court of the District Of Columbia.
QUESTION OF CONsTITUTIONALITY
The question involved is whether
the act of Congress is constitutional
and the Court Of Appeals decided that
1t was wholly void and unconstitu-
ttonal." Block is merchant en-
gagged in business at 919 F street
northwest. In 1916 he leased the
property. the cellar and first floor OF
that building. for three years. begin
ming January I. 1917, and ending De
cember 81, 1919. The lease contained
the usual covenant to surrender pos
session at it's expiration. On Novem
Der IL. 1919, the title to this property
was conveyed to Louis Hirsh. In
stead Of giving notice to vacate as re-
Quired by the act of October %, 1919,
Hirsh, on December IS. 1919, notified
Block that he had purchased the prop
erty and would require possession at
the expiration Of the lease, Decem-
Der 81, 1919. He failed to deliver pos
session and Hirsh brought suit in the
SouiI W io-O'
Judgment was against him and he
appealed to the District Supreme
Court. There, proceeding under the
nineteenth rule. he filed an affidavit
OF merit setting forth the foregoing
fact and demanding possession.
LOST IN COURT OF APPEALS.
Hirsh then moved for judgment
Notwithstanding the affidavit of the
defense. This motion was overruled
and the court gave judgment for the
defendant. Thereupon Hirsh ap
pealed to the Court of Appeals. In
his brief in that court his counsel
said that the only question was
whether certain provisions Of the
rents act were constitutional. The
majority of the Court Of Appeals, In
an opinion delivered by Mr.. Justice
Van Orsdel. held the statute uncon'
stitutional. reversed the judgment
and remanded the case for further
proceedings not inconsistent with thu
opinion. Chief Justice Smyth dis
sented. being of the opinion that the
statute was constitutional. There
upon petitioner asked the Court o.
Appeals to grant a writ of error Il
the United States Supreme Court
Hirsh also fled a motion to modify
the judgment so as to direct the tria,
court to grant his motion for judg'