Opinion · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Rowe v. Nolan Finance Co.

142 F.2d 93

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1944-04-10
Topic: general

PER CURIAM. Appellant filed a complaint in the District Court in which she alleged that she had borrowed $262.80 from appellees on a note and had given a deed of trust on an automobile as security; that this transaction was fraudulent and usurious; and that appellees seized the car upon appellant’s default in a payment on the note. Appellant demanded damages in an aggregate amount of $2,000, an order that appellees disclose the state of the account between the parties, and an injunction against sale of the car. The court rightly dismissed the complaint on the ground that the amount in controversy was not sufficient to give the court jurisdiction. Suits “in which the claimed value of personal property or the debt or damages claimed” does not exceed $3,000 are now in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Court for the District of Columbia.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Rowe v. Nolan Finance Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 18 opinions

ROWE v. NOLAN FINANCE CO.,142 F.2d 93(D.C. Cir. 1944)

ROWE v. NOLAN FINANCE CO. et al.

No. 8573.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued March 16, 1944.

Decided April 10, 1944.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

Action by Hazel B. Rowe against Nolan Finance Company and others for $2,000 damages, for an order that defendants disclose the state of an account between the parties, and for an injunction against the sale of an automobile. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Mr. Rossa F. Downing, of Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Walter E. McNamara, of Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Samuel Barker, of Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. William R. Lichtenberg, of Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellees.

Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and EDGERTON and ARNOLD, Associate Justices.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed a complaint in the District Court in which she alleged that she had borrowed $262.80 from appellees on a note and had given a deed of trust on an automobile as security; that this transaction was fraudulent and usurious; and that appellees seized the car upon appellant's default in a payment on the note. Appellant demanded damages in an aggregate amount of $2,000, an order that appellees disclose the state of the account between the parties, and an injunction against sale of the car. The court rightly dismissed the complaint on the ground that the amount in controversy was not sufficient to give the court jurisdiction. Suits "in which the claimed value of personal property or the debt or damages claimed" does not exceed $3,000 are now in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Court for the District of Columbia. D.C. Code 1940, Supp. II, § 11 — 755, 56 Stat. 192, ch. 207, § 4; Klepinger v. Rhodes, 78 U.S. App.D.C. 340,140 F.2d 697.

Though the court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, it undertook to make findings upon the merits. These findings are without effect. Dismissal is without prejudice to the enforcement in the Municipal Court of any claim which appellant may have.

Affirmed.Page 94