Legal Opinion

Hamer v. Eastern Credit Ass'n

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided June 19, 1963No. 3207Published

1Opinion of the Court

QUINN, Associate Judge.

In this case appellee sued for the balance due on a note and obtained judgment by default. About nine months later, appellant moved to set aside the judgment alleging that he was an infant at the time he signed the note. A verified affidavit giving appellant’s date of birth accompanied the motion. This date, if accurate, would have established appellant’s infancy. Nevertheless, the motion was denied and this appeal followed.

Code 1961, Section 13-105 provides:

“Whenever an infant is a party defendant in any suit, in equity or at law, the subpoena or summons issued in such…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Gray v. DrozeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1947

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

Powered by the Exa API