Legal Opinion
Wilson v. Gorden
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided September 25, 1952No. 1242PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
QUINN, Associate Judge.
This was a suit on a negotiable promissory note. Decision of the case turns entirely upon whether plaintiff was a holder in due course within the meaning of the Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law in force in the District of Columbia, 1 and thus took the note free from defenses available to the makers against the payee. The case was tried without a jury, and the trial court in finding for defendants stated in its memorandum opinion “that the plaintiff is not a bona fide holder in due course and is not an innocent purchaser for value * * Plaintiff appeals.
The…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- McDonald v. StoneDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1952
- Bowles v. MarshDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1951
- Palmer v. Associates Discount CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1941
- Fabrizio v. AndersonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1948
- Eastern Acceptance Corp. v. HenryDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1948
3Cited by5 opinions
- Block v. Ford Motor Credit CompanyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1972
- Mann v. LeaskoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Russell v. Universal Acceptance CorporationDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1965
- Lore v. Girard Trust Corn Exchange BankSuperior Court of Delaware · 1956
- Smith v. Atlas Contracting Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 1964