Case Name: BIGGS v. SPARKS et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1919-05-22
Citations: 258 F. 964
Docket Number: No. 3236
Parties: BIGGS v. SPARKS et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 258
Pages: 964–965

Head Matter:
BIGGS v. SPARKS et al.
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted April 4, 1919.
Decided May 22, 1919.)
No. 3236.
War <&wkey;4 — Recovery or Possession oe Leased Premises — Saulsbury Resolution.
Under Joint Resolution of May 31, 1918, prohibiting proceedings to recover possession of leased premises during the war, except where the ! property has been sold to a bona fide purchaser for qccupancy, etc., bona fide purchasers may recover possession at'termination of lease, irrespective of whether they are engaged in war work.
Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
Landlord and tenant proceeding to recover possession of leased premises by Andrew W. Sparks and Mary Sparks against Albert Biggs. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
J. H. Bilbrey, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Walter P. Plumley, of Washington, D. C., for appellees.

Opinion:
VAN OR.SDEF, Associate Justice.
This appeal is from a judgment for possession of leased premises in a landlord and tenant proceeding.
On July 31, 1918, appellees, plaintiffs below, purchased the premises in question for occupancy as a home, subject to the monthly tenancy of defendant. Notice to quit was given, and this proceeding to recover possession followed. Plaintiff Andrew W. Sparks and defendant were war workers. But this is not important, since plaintiffs were bona fide purchasers and entitled to possession, under the exception to the provisions of the Saulsbury Resolution of May 31, 1918 (40 Stat. 593, c. 90). Maxwell v. Brayshaw, 49 App. D. C. -, 258 Fed. 957.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Affirmed.