WHITE
v.
CREEDON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A party cannot raise a trial court's inadvertent error for the first time on appeal if they suffered no injury and did not bring it to the trial court's attention.
The Price Administrator sued White for statutory damages due to rental overcharges under the Emergency Price Control Act. The trial court found overch…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Violation Of Emergency Price Control Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment awarding the Price Administrator statutory damages, pursuant to the provisions of § 205(e) of the Emergency Price Control Act, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 925(e). The complaint alleged that on October 1, 1944, White rented a dwelling unit at 1446 N.W. 39th St., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to S. W. Osborne and demanded and recéived a rental of $75 per month from October 1, 1944, to October 9, 1946; that .the maximum legal rental for the unit was $50 per month; and that White received an overcharge between March 1, 1945, and October 9, 1945, of $183.33; that on December 1, 1944, White rented a dwelling unit at 1444 N.W. 39th St., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to H. G. Campbell and demanded and received $75 per month from December, 1944, to June 1, 1945; that the maximum legal rental for the unit was $50 per month; and that White received an overcharge of $75 between March 1, 1945, and June 1, 1945.
The. evidence fully established that the overcharges were demanded and received as alleged. The trial court made a general finding that White “did demand and receive rent in excess of the maximum legal rate in the instances and on the occasions al leged in the complaint.” It made a specific finding that White demanded and received an aggregate of $183.33 in excess of the maximum legal rate for the dwelling units during the period between March 1, 1945, and October 9, 1945, and that the Administrator was entitled to recover $774.99. It then awarded judgment for $774.99.
It will be observed that the aggregate of the overcharges, as alleged and proved, was $258.33, rather than $183.33, the latter amount being the. overcharge for the unit at 1446 N.W. 39th St. After the judgment was entered, White, filed a motion for a new trial. He did not challenge the sufficiency of the court’s findings to support the judgment.
It is quite obvious that the figure, $183.33, in the findings was an inadvertent error. Moreover, had the error been called to the court’s attention, it, no doubt, would have been corrected. White suffered no injury because of the error and is precluded from raising the question here for the first time.1
Affirmed,
National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., v. School District No. 68. 10 Cir., 115 F. 2d 232, 231; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Doerksen, 10 Cir., 75 F. 2d 96, 101.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Doerksen, 75 F.2d 96 (10th Cir. 1935)
- Nat'l Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Sch. Dist. NO. 68, 115 F.2d 232 (10th Cir. 1940)