Legal Opinion · Dissent

Morgan v. Gilmer

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided April 30, 1964No. 3432Published

1DissentCayton, Judge

In the first place defendant was entitled to judgment on the ground that there was no consideration for the note. The uncon-tradicted evidence was that neither she nor her brother owed anything to plaintiff. The statement in a deposition, that the note was for “a debt” has no probative value and indeed no actual meaning.

More important, the trial court should have found that the note was given under duress. Defendant was confronted by two armed men, one a Chicago detective (Cham-berlin) and the other dressed as a D. C. Metropolitan policeman, both of their guns being visible. Chamberlin said…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Rizzi v. FanelliDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1949
  2. O'Toole v. LamsonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1914
  3. Meisel v. AlexanderDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1955

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

Powered by the Exa API