
    WHITE v. HICKMAN et al.
    (Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
    Submitted April 4, 1919.
    Decided May 22, 1919.)
    No. 3232.
    War &wkey;>4 — Saulsbury Resolution — District or Columbia — Rent Peoit-theeing.
    Joint resolution of May 31. 1918, relating to rent profiteering in District of Columbia, does not prevent the purchasers of premises subject to a lease from ousting the lessee at the expiration of the lease, irrespective of fact that two of the purchasers were employed by the government, or that, the lessee was caring for persons employed by the government.
    Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
    Action by Mary P. Hickman, Sallie P. Jenkins, Annie H. Perrie, and J. Porter Perrie against Mrs. M. D. White. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Julius I. Peyser and Charles F. Carusi, both of Washington, D. C., and F. B. Mayer, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
    George C. Gertman, of Washington, D. C., for appellees.
   VAN ORSDRT,, Associate Justice.

Appellees, plaintiffs below, on August 1, 1918, purchased certain premises in the District of Columbia for occupancy as a residence. The purchase was subject to a lease held by defendant which expired September 4, 1918. At the expiration of the lease, this action was brought to recover possession of the premises. From a judgment for plaintiffs, this appeal was taken.

It matters not, either that two of the plaintiffs were in the employ of the government, or that defendant was caring for 11 persons in the employ of the government; since the case is not within the provisions of the Saulsbury Resolution of May 31, 1918. 40 Stat. 593, c. 90. Maxwell v. Brayshaw, 49 App. D. C. -, 258 Fed. 957.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Affirmed.  