Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Constantine ROUMEL, Appellant, v. Natale AVIGNONE, Corinne Avignone, Abe Stein, and Ethel Stein, Appellees, 1926 — 13 F.2d 296 · caselaw · US
General
Constantine ROUMEL, Appellant, v. Natale AVIGNONE, Corinne Avignone, Abe Stein, and Ethel Stein, Appellees
13 F.2d 296·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia·1926
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice, and GRAHAM, Presiding Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Constantine ROUMEL, Appellant, v. Natale AVIGNONE, Corinne Avignone, Abe Stein, and Ethel Stein, Appellees.
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted January 4, 1926.
Decided May 3, 1926.)
No. 4351.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice, and GRAHAM, Presiding Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.
[MAJORITY — GRAHAM, Acting Associate Justice.]
GRAHAM, Acting Associate Justice.
On March 12, 1925, in equity, No. 43588, Natale Avignone et al. v. Constantine Roumel, the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia entered a decree dismissing the complainant’s bill, with costs, and making the following additional order:
“The issue of plaintiff’s claim against the defendant for damages be and the same hereby is certified to the law division of this court for trial; the bill of complaint and answer thereto in respect to said claim to stand for and as declaration and pleas, respectively.”
From that decree the appellant, Roumel, has appealed, assigning as error the rendition of that portion of said decree above quoted.
We have concurrently herewith, in Natale Avignone et al. v. Constantine Roumel,App. D. C. -, 13 F.(2d) 292, entered judgment reversing said decree and remanding the same to said Supreme Court. It follows, therefore, that judgment should be and is hereby entered herein, reversing said decree and remanding said cause to the Supreme Court for further proceedings.