Richards v. Street
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Hearing on an appeal by tbe defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, entered after a motion for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense had been granted, in an action on a promissory note. The Court in the opinion stated the facts as follows: This action was brought by Garfield A Street against William A. Richards to recover the sum of $400 on a promissory note for that amount.
Read the full summary
Hearing on an appeal by tbe defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, entered after a motion for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense had been granted, in an action on a promissory note. The Court in the opinion stated the facts as follows: This action was brought by Garfield A Street against William A. Richards to recover the sum of $400 on a promissory note for that amount. The said note, with its indorsements, reads as follows: Washington, D. C., Aug. 20, 1907. Ninety days after date we promise to pay to the order of Albert M. Cowell Four…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Shepard
1. The first assignment of error relates to the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s affidavit. The contention is that it alleges the indorsement of the note by defendant after, instead of before, the indorsement by Albert M. Cowell and A. M. Cowell & Son; wherefore there is a variance between the note as alleged and the one referred to. It is argued that the defendant’s liability, as accommodation indorser, is' only to parties subsequent to the payee, as provided in sec. 1368 of the Code. The affidavit does not recite that the indorsement of defendant followed that of the payee. This might he said…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Goodman v. SimondsSupreme Court of the United States · 1858
- Mann v. Second National BankSupreme Court of Kansas · 1886
- Hortsman v. HenshawSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- Burgess v. Northern BankCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1868