Legal Opinion
Holcombe v. O'SULLIVAN
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided December 15, 1952No. 1279PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HOOD, Associate Judge.
Appellee-plaintiff sued for the balance allegedly due on a promissory note. Appellant-defendant denied owing anything, alleged that the note was usurious and counterclaimed for alleged usurious interest previously paid.
The note in suit was dated May 13, 1932, at Washington, D. C., and was in the face amount of $2,133, payable three years after date with interest at 6% per annum. Apparently plaintiff resides in Ireland and apparently defendant is a resident of the District of Columbia. Neither testified at the trial. Except for the note itself and two pieces of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Bowen v. Mount Vernon Sav. BankCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
- Bochicchio v. PetrocelliSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1940
- District of Columbia v. Hamilton Nat. Bank of WashingtonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1950
- Sterrett v. Stoddard Lumber Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1935
- Beadall v. MooreAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Hall v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1986
- MONTGOMERY FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASS'N v. BaerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1973
- Bettum v. Montgomery Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1971
- H. Max Ammerman v. Lou MillerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1973
- Finance America Corp. v. MoylerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.