Case Name: WILLIAMS v. JACOBS 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. 3234
Parties: WILLIAMS v. JACOBS et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 258
Pages: 964–964

Head Matter:
WILLIAMS v. JACOBS et al.
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted April 4, 1919.
Decided May 22, 1919.)
No. 3234.
War <&wkey;4 — Salisbury Resolution — District op Columbia — Rent Profiteering.
Joint Resolution of May 31,1918, relating to rent profiteering in tbe District of Columbia, does not prevent tbe purchaser of premises subject to a lease from- ousting- lessee at termination of lease, although lessee was harboring war workers.
Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
Action by Douis Jacobs and Fannie Jacobs against Nathan B. Williams. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
H. B. B. Atkisson and Chapin Brown, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
J. U. Gardiner, of Washington, D. C., for appellees.

Opinion:
VAN ORSDEB, Associate Justice.
Appellees, plaintiffs below, husband and wife, jointly purchased certain real estate in the District of Columbia for occupancy as a home. The purchase was made in November, 19Í7, subject to a lease which expired August 31, 1918. At the expiration of this lease, this action was promptly brought to recover possession; and from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs defendant appealed.
The record discloses that the plaintiffs were bona fide purchasers, and it is no defense under the Saulsbury Resolution of May 31, 1918 (40 Stat. 593, c. 90) that defendant was harboring war workers. The case is ruled by Maxwell v. Brayshaw, 49 App. D. C. -, 258 Fed. 957.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Affirmed,