Legal Opinion
Slater v. Cannon
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided December 4, 1952No. 1269, 1270PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CAYTON, Chief Judge.
A plaintiff has appealed and defendant has cross-appealed from a judgment in a suit on a promissory note. The record presented to us is so strikingly incomplete that we cannot do other than affirm on both appeals.
The suit below was on a note; trial was without a jury and resulted in finding and judgment for plaintiff for $1200 with interest from the date of the finding, and without costs. Plaintiff appealed from the failure to include interest from the date of the note, attorney’s fees and costs in the judgment awarded him. Defendant cross-appealed, contending that it was…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Chicago Sugar Co. v. American Sugar Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1949
- Hicks v. Bekins Moving & Storage Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1940
- United States v. McWilliamsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1947
- Refior v. Lansing Drop Forge Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1942
- Sweeney v. AndersonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1942
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Sears, Roebuck and Company v. GoudieDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1972
- Easter v. Kass-Berger, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1956
- Christian v. BrunoDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1968
- Dickson v. MarshallDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1955
- Bailey v. Washington Motor Truck Tr. Emp. Pen. TrustDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1968
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.