From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rosen v. Cain

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Apr 15, 1954
211 F.2d 809 (D.C. Cir. 1954)

Opinion

Nos. 11947, 11948.

Argued April 5, 1954.

Decided April 15, 1954.

Mr. Stanley H. Kamerow, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Allan L. Kamerow, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellant in No. 11947 and appellee in No. 11948.

Mr. William H. Clarke, Washington, D.C., for appellees in No. 11947 and appellants in No. 11948. Mr. Richard W. Galiher, Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for appellees in No. 11947 and appellants in No. 11948.

Before WILBUR K. MILLER, PRETTYMAN and FAHY, Circuit Judges.


The appellees in No. 11,947 sued for specific performance of a contract with the appellant by the terms of which the latter agreed to sell them a "proprietary lease" on a unit in a co-operative apartment house owned and operated by a corporation which he controlled.

Appellant resisted on the ground that a condition precedent — approval of the purchasers by the corporation's directors — had not been met. It appeared, however, that, at or about the same time, he had sold to the female appellee a lease on an adjoining apartment without board approval. He said, "* * * I thought I knew enough of Mrs. Cain to approve her without the board * *."

The District Court correctly concluded that appellant's defense was based on an insubstantial technicality. The corporation was his alter ego. The judgment decreeing specific performance is affirmed.

The second appeal, No. 11,948, is from the trial court's refusal to give the purchasers judgment against Rosen for their counsel fee. We cannot say this refusal was an abuse of discretion.

Affirmed on both appeals.


Summaries of

Rosen v. Cain

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Apr 15, 1954
211 F.2d 809 (D.C. Cir. 1954)
Case details for

Rosen v. Cain

Case Details

Full title:ROSEN v. CAIN et al. CAIN et al. v. ROSEN

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

Date published: Apr 15, 1954

Citations

211 F.2d 809 (D.C. Cir. 1954)
94 U.S. App. D.C. 72

Citing Cases

Quinn v. Butz

Prominently included are those wherein the corporate fiction would enable circumvention of a statute,…

Francis O. Day Co. v. Shapiro

In Peoples Mortg. Corporation v. Bedrosian, 1946, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 69, 154 F.2d 332, we reversed a judgment…