Lincoln v. Grant
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Hearing on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, entered for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, in an action on a promissory note. The Court in the opinion stated the facts as follows: Appeal from a summary judgment under the 73d rule for the plaintiff, Harry A. Grant, appellee here, in the supreme court of the District.
Read the full summary
Hearing on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, entered for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, in an action on a promissory note. The Court in the opinion stated the facts as follows: Appeal from a summary judgment under the 73d rule for the plaintiff, Harry A. Grant, appellee here, in the supreme court of the District. Plaintiff declared upon a promissory note for $493.59 which had been signed by the defendant, S. Dana Lincoln, payable to the Standard Lime & Stone Company, and indorsed after maturity to the plaintiff. In the second count of the…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Robb
The court below, after stating that the defendant had pleaded set-off in addition to the general issue, ruled that the plea of set-off is not available as against an indorser, even though the indorsement was made after maturity. No other question appears to lave been considered.
The opinion of the trial court on the question decided, which we adopt, is as follows:
“This is a motion for judgment under the 73d rule. Plaintiff sues on a promissory note transferred to him by indorsement of the payee. The defendant pleads set-off, in addition to the general issue, and his affidavit of defense sets…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Armstrong v. NobleSupreme Court of Vermont · 1883
- Eversole v. MaullCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1878
- Simpson v. HallSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1879
- Downing v. GibsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1880
- Hunleth v. LeahySupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.