Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 D.C. 166

Hartman v. Hazen

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · decided 1935-07-01

Relies on Goldsmith v. United States Board of Tax Appeals · Hegeman Farms Corp. v. Baldwin · Gorham Mfg Co v. State Tax Commission of New Tork

Decided 1935-07-01

¶1*167MEMORANDUM

ADKINS, J.

¶2Under the statute the plaintiff had the right to make application to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia to review the order suspending his operator’s permit. Such application would have operated as a stay of the order of suspension until the decision of the Commissioners.

¶3Therefore it was the duty of plaintiff to avail himself of this administrative remedy before bringing suit in court—Hegeman Farms Corp. v. Baldwin, 293 U. S. 163, 172; Chicago Elc. Ry. Co. v. Risty, 276 U. S. 567, 575; Gorham Mfg. Co. v. Tax Comm., 266 U. S. 265; Goldsmith v. Board of Tax App., 270 U. S. 123; U. S. ex rel. Connor v. District of Columbia, 61 App. D. C. 288.

¶4Plaintiff having failed to avail himself of this administrative remedy, a temporary restraining order should not be issued.

/2/dc/166 · .json · Public domain