Legal Opinion
Carter v. Purcellville National Bank
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided February 26, 1960No. 2457PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
QUINN, Associate Judge.
This case was previously here on an appeal from a summary judgment entered in Carter’s favor. We reversed, holding that there were material issues of fact involved. 1 The facts, set out in our former opinion, need not be reiterated.
On the first appeal, Carter argued that the note sued on was made in contemplation of a discharge and cancellation of old notes, and since those notes were not canceled, there was a failure of consideration. The bank contended that the consideration for renewal was an extension of time and forbearance to sue on the old notes and that there…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Holley v. SmalleyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1921
- Knight v. SontagDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1953
- McReynolds v. National Woodworking Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 1928
- Sheriger v. GrunerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1943
- Purcellville National Bank v. CarterDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1958
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Yasuna v. MillerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
- First Maryland Financial Services Corp. v. District-Realty Title Insurance Corp.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1988
- Pallie v. Riggs National BankDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997