From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Porter v. Conrad

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Apr 17, 1952
196 F.2d 240 (D.C. Cir. 1952)

Opinion

No. 10989.

Argued January 4, 1952.

Decided April 17, 1952.

Appeal from the Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Earl H. Davis, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

J. Joseph Barse, Washington, D.C., with whom H. Mason Welch, John R. Daily and J. Harry Welch, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before PRETTYMAN, PROCTOR and BAZELON, Circuit Judges.


This appeal was allowed to review the application by the Municipal Court of Appeals of our decisions in Rosenberg v. Murray, and Hiscox v. Jackson in determining the limited circumstances under which the presumption of consent under the District of Columbia Owners' Financial Responsibility Act, D.C. Code § 40-403 (1940), may be overcome as a matter of law. Upon our review of this case, we conclude that the Municipal Court of Appeals correctly stated and applied the governing principles laid down by this court.

We therefore adopt the opinion of the Municipal Court of Appeals, reported in 1951, 79 A.2d 777, in affirming its judgment herein.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Porter v. Conrad

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Apr 17, 1952
196 F.2d 240 (D.C. Cir. 1952)
Case details for

Porter v. Conrad

Case Details

Full title:Jasper PORTER, Appellant, v. J. Fairfax CONRAD, Appellee

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: Apr 17, 1952

Citations

196 F.2d 240 (D.C. Cir. 1952)
90 U.S. App. D.C. 423

Citing Cases

Jones v. Halun

The plaintiff has the burden of proof and it is necessary that the evidence show the owner consented.…

Stumpner v. Harrison

Rosenberg v. Murray, 73 App.D.C. 67, 116 F.2d 552. If the presumption is overcome by uncontradicted proof —…