Camp v. Goodman

2 Citing cases

  1. Sanchez v. Eleven Fourteen, Inc.

    623 A.2d 1179 (D.C. 1993)   Cited 11 times

    It is, of course, fundamental that the rights of a subtenant can, with at least one limited exception to be mentioned, rise no higher than those of his sublessor. Camp v. Goodman, 47 A.2d 516, 517 (D.C. 1946); 1 MILTON R. FRIEDMAN, FRIEDMAN ON LEASES § 7.703 (1990) ("Termination of Prime Lease — Effect on Sublease") [hereinafter FRIEDMAN]. Therefore, upon the valid termination of the master lease by Lessor, both Tenant's and Subtenant's rights to further lawful possession of the premises came to an end.

  2. Lalekos v. Manset

    47 A.2d 617 (D.C. 1946)   Cited 20 times
    In Lalekos the landlord gave possession of only a portion of the premises to the tenant, and the tenant was permitted to "defend on the ground that he does not owe all the rent claimed."

    Jones, Landlord and Tenant, 1st Ed. 1906, § 367. Camp v. Goodman, D.C.Mun.App., 47 A.2d 516. The principal point raised by this appeal is whether the defendant has raised a valid defense to an action for possession based on non-payment of rent. It is well established that in ruling on a motion for a directed verdict the trial court must consider the evidence introduced by the party against whom the verdict is sought as true, and view all the evidence in the light most favorable to him, giving him the benefit of all reasonable inferences therefrom.