Levene v. Oliver

ROVER, Chief Judge. Appellant sued for the amount allegedly due him for services rendered the appel-lees, pursuant to a written contract, in adjusting a fire loss to a building and its contents owned by the latter. At the end of the appellant’s case, the court granted appellees’ motion to dismiss, denied appellant’s motion for a new trial, and entered a judgment for appellees. While there has been filed here a transcript of the argument on the motion to dismiss and the motion for a new trial, appellant has failed to file either a statement of proceedings and evidence or a transcript of the trial testimony [our Rule 21(f)], The court in granting the motion to dismiss said: “ * * * I am going to dismiss this case on one ground and one ground only * * * that this contract is violative of the public policy of the District of Columbia, because it authorizes this man [appellant] to be paid for practicing law when he doesn’t have a license to do so.” In Courembis v. Morfessis, D.C.Mun.App., 143 A.2d 517, 518, we said: “We have stated time and again that it is incumbent on the party seeking reversal to furnish this court with a sufficient record so that we may be able to pass on the errors of law alleged.” 1 *325 We have no way of determining whether the court was correct or not in view of the failure of appellant to furnish us with a proper record. We accordingly have no discretion except to affirm. It is so ordered. Footnotes [1] Cf. Meredith v. Fitzgerald, D.C.Mun.App., 102 A.2d 306; Wilkins v. Woodruff, D.C. Mun.App., 74 A.2d 59.