Codington v. Standard Bank of Canada
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
HeabiNG on an appeal by tbe defendant from a judgment for the plaintiff in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, under the 73d rule, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The Court in the opinion stated the facts as follows: Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff, appellee here, in the supreme court of the District, under the 73d rule.
Read the full summary
HeabiNG on an appeal by tbe defendant from a judgment for the plaintiff in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, under the 73d rule, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The Court in the opinion stated the facts as follows: Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff, appellee here, in the supreme court of the District, under the 73d rule. The plaintiff commenced its suit September 7, 1912, and declared on a note for $500, signed by the defendant, dated at Grand Rapids, Michigan, May 10, 1909, payable to the order of the Cuban Realty Company, Limited, four months after date,…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Bobb
As we have many times suggested, the object of the 73d rule is to promote justice by preventing, so far as possible, fictitious defeuses. It was, of course, never intended as a substitute for a trial. If, therefore, the court, upon reading an affidavit of defense, is convinced that it has been made in good faith, and that a doubt exists as to the right of the plaintiff to recover, *412summary judgment ought not to be entered. Lawrence v. Hammond, 4 App. D. C. 467; St. Clair v. Conlon, 12 App. D. C. 161; Patterson v. Barrie, 30 App. D. C. 531; Columbia Laundry Co. v. Ellis, 36 App. D. C. 583.…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Wells v. Alropa CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1936
- Flather v. SchuergerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1938
- Wells v. Alropa CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1936