Legal Opinion

Russell v. Universal Acceptance Corporation

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided June 16, 1965No. 3656PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

QUINN, Associate Judge:

Appellee instituted this action to recover the balance due on a promissory note executed by appellant for the purchase of a wig and services from Wigtyme, Inc. Appellant answered alleging that she was not indebted to appellee since there had been a failure of consideration. The trial court found, however, that appellee was a holder in due course and awarded judgment for the amount in default. Appellant challenges the decision of the court.

Appellant purchased the wig in March 1963. The price was $336 and included Wigtyme’s promise to provide forty-eight “servicings” over…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Hill v. HawesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1944
  2. James W. Beatty v. Franklin Investment Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1963
  3. Interstate Bankers Corp. v. KennedyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1943
  4. Millard v. Lorain Investment CorporationDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1962
  5. Implement Credit Corp. v. ElsingerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Smith v. Sherwood & Roberts, Spokane, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Fuller v. UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE CORPORATIONDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1970
  3. Smith v. Sherwood & Roberts, Spokane, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1968

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

Powered by the Exa API