Strauss v. Hensey
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Hearing on an appeal by the defendant from a judgment, under the 73d rule in action on the common counts, and on an appeal by the same party from an order overruling a motion to vacate such judgment.
Read the full summary
Hearing on an appeal by the defendant from a judgment, under the 73d rule in action on the common counts, and on an appeal by the same party from an order overruling a motion to vacate such judgment. The Court in its opinion stated the case as follows : There are two appeals in the record before us — one from the judgment of the court below entered under rule 73 of that court, and the other from an order overruling a motion to vacate the judgment entered under the rule, and refusing to allow the case to be tried on the defence offered by the defendant. The action was brought by Thomas G.…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Alvey
It is doubtless the well settled doctrine that the transferrer by delivery merely of a bill or note is liable for failure of consideration, if it turn out that it was fictitious, or originally forged, or subsequently altered either in the signatures, or in the amount, so as to invalidate the instrument. If a party sells a bill or note, and it is not what upon its face it purports to be, and what he by implication affirms it to be, he is in justice, and by implied assumpsit, liable to the vendee for what he has received from him as the price of the bill or note, on the ground of failure of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Loan Assn. v. TopekaSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Otis v. Cullum, ReceiverSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Ellis v. WildMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- Fisher v. RiemanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1859
- Hussey v. SibleySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1876