Chidakel v. Blonder
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
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
- Kramer v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1970
- Havatampa Corp. v. Walton Drug Co., Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1978
- American Exchange Bank, Collinsville, Okl. v. CessnaDistrict Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 1974
- Southeastern Financial Corporation v. SmithDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama · 1975
- Dynamic Homes, Inc. v. RogersDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1976
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Jaffe v. NoceraDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
- Kbi Transport Services v. Medical Transportation Management, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2010
- Hunt v. Dental Capital Corp.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
- Wise v. DukerOhio Court of Appeals · 1988
- Katheer B. Ibrahim v. Medical Transportation Management, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2010