Legal Opinion
Nesbit v. Pollak
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided April 10, 1951No. 1026PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CAYTON, Chief Judge.
This was a suit on a promissory note.; In addition to certain defenses on the merits, defendants interposed a counter-claim demanding damages, on the 'grounds of fraud and usury. The trial court .directed a verdict against plaintiffs, ruling that their action was barred by our statute, of- limitations, Code 1940, 12-201, and on the same ground, directed a verdict 1 against defendants on their counter-claim. .-Both parties have, appealed.
Appellants, plaintiffs below,'have moved to dismiss appellees’ “cross-appeal” on the ground that ’it was' ■ filed' twenty-eight days after…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Farrar v. ChurchillSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Hilton v. DickinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Annie Service v. Farmington Savings BankSupreme Court of Kansas · 1900
- N. & G. Taylor Co. v. AndersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Sears, Roebuck and Company v. GoudieDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1972
- Da Costa v. HardyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1955