Legal Opinion

Chidakel v. Blonder

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided May 28, 1981No. 13582PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MACK, Associate Judge:

This is an appeal from a judgment by the trial court that the appellees (Florence and Harvey Blonder) whose signatures appear on the face of a promissory note, were not individually liable thereon. Appellant primarily alleges that the trial court erred 1) in not holding as a matter of law that the appellees were personally liable on the note; and 2) in admitting parol evidence to prove that the appellees signed in a representative capacity. 1 We affirm.

The promissory note at issue was prepared by appellant’s counsel and executed by appellees in connection with the sale…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Kramer v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1970
  2. Havatampa Corp. v. Walton Drug Co., Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1978
  3. American Exchange Bank, Collinsville, Okl. v. CessnaDistrict Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 1974
  4. Southeastern Financial Corporation v. SmithDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama · 1975
  5. Dynamic Homes, Inc. v. RogersDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1976

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Jaffe v. NoceraDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
  2. Kbi Transport Services v. Medical Transportation Management, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2010
  3. Hunt v. Dental Capital Corp.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
  4. Wise v. DukerOhio Court of Appeals · 1988
  5. Katheer B. Ibrahim v. Medical Transportation Management, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2010

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

Powered by the Exa API