Legal Opinion

Hankin v. Spilker

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided May 15, 1951No. 877PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

HOOD, Associate Judge.

There is no need to again review the facts as this was done in our earlier opinion, Hankin v. Spilker, D.C.Mun.App., 72 A.2d 45. We ruled that under the doctrine of res judicata defendant was liable on a series of seven notes because she had unsuccessfully defended a suit on an earlier note which had been given to plaintiff as a part of the same transaction. We ordered a reversal of the Municipal Court judgment which had been entered in favor of defendant. Because our ruling on the res judicata question was decisive of the appeal, we thought it unnecessary to discuss or…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Spilker v. HankinCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1951
  2. Schaff v. R. W. Claxton, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1944
  3. Etty v. Federal Consulting Service, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1948
  4. Hankin v. SpilkerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1950

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Jess Fisher & Co. v. DarbyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1953

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API