Clark v. Read
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Hearing on an appeal by tlie defendant from a judgment on verdict in an action on two promissory notes. The Court in its opinion stated the case as follows: This is a suit in assumpsit, instituted in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, on December 19, 1896, by the appellee, Martha M. Read, against one John C. Hurst, as maker, and the two appellants, Jacob P. Clark and the Palisades of the Potomac Land Improvement Company, as endorsers, of two certain promissory…
Read the full summary
Hearing on an appeal by tlie defendant from a judgment on verdict in an action on two promissory notes. The Court in its opinion stated the case as follows: This is a suit in assumpsit, instituted in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, on December 19, 1896, by the appellee, Martha M. Read, against one John C. Hurst, as maker, and the two appellants, Jacob P. Clark and the Palisades of the Potomac Land Improvement Company, as endorsers, of two certain promissory notes, one for $7,500, and the other for $3,000, both bearing date on April 1, 1891, and both payable on or before April…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Morris
1. There are two principal questions in this case; and the first of these is, whether the attachment of the seal of the *350appellant' company to its endorsement was sufficient to constitute the instrument a specialty, and to preclude its introduction in evidence in this action of assumpsit. We think that this question should be answered in the negative, both upon reason and upon authority.
Whether the mere affixing of a seal to an instrument of writing not required to be under seal, such as a promissory note, when there are no words in the instrument purporting an intention to execute it as a…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Vermilye & Co. v. Adams Express Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Dinsmore v. . DuncanNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Jackson v. MyersCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1876
- Auerbach v. Le Sueur Mill Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
3Cited by1 opinion
- Lawrence M. Sigler v. Mt. Vernon Bottling Company, Inc., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1958