Durant v. Murdock
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Hearing on an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, holding a law term, under the 73d rule of that court, in an action of assumpsit on promissory notes.
Read the full summary
Hearing on an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, holding a law term, under the 73d rule of that court, in an action of assumpsit on promissory notes. The Court in its opinion stated the case as follows: This is an appeal from a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, in a suit at common law, upon certain promissory notes, under the 73d rule of that court, providing for summary judgments upon affidavits. The parties, James F: Durant and Edwin F. Murdock, had been partners in some business designated as the “…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Morris
The appellant’s position is: 1st. That the plaintiff is not entitled to recover, because the notes were made payable to the order of the plaintiff, and not to the plaintiff, and are so described in the declaration; 2d. That no breach of the con*118tract is alleged, inasmuch as it is not alleged that the plaintiff had indorsed the notes; 3d. That the plaintiff was not entitled to interest upon the notes; 4th. That the plaintiff’s affidavit was insufficient to justify a judgment under the 73d rule; 5th. That the appellant’s affidavit of defense sufficiently stated a failure of consideration for the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Henry Miller's Heirs & Devisees v. M'IntyreSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
- United States v. EckfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1868
- Lessee of Sicard v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
- Holmes and Others v. Trout and OthersSupreme Court of the United States · 1833
- Gillespie v. CreswellCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1841
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.