Albert C. Simonson v. International Bank of Washington

D.C. Circuit

Albert C. Simonson v. International Bank of Washington

312 F.2d 887, 114 U.S. App. D.C. 160

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 4, 1963

Docket17054_1

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 312 F.2d 887 (Albert C. Simonson v. International Bank of Washington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Albert C. Simonson v. International Bank of Washington, 312 F.2d 887, 114 U.S. App. D.C. 160 (D.C. Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an action ex contractu brought ;by Simonson against International Bank. The District Court held that the contract sued on was not under seal, and that therefore this action was barred because the three-year period of limitation had run. Simonson insists the contract was under seal and so was subject to the twelve-year period of limitation which has not expired.

The corporate seal of the International Bank was affixed but there was no other seal, and no recital or other indication that the execution of a sealed instrument was intended by the bank. In these circumstances, we hold the contract is not a sealed instrument. Sigler v. Mt. Vernon Bottling Co., 104 U.S.App.D.C. 260, 261 F.2d 378 (1958); Brown v. Commercial Fire Insurance Co., 21 App.D.C. 325, 336 (1903).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an action ex contractu brought ;by Simonson against International Bank. The District Court held that the contract sued on was not under seal, and that therefore this action was barred because the three-year period of limitation had run. Simonson insists the contract was under seal and so was subject to the twelve-year period of limitation which has not expired.

The corporate seal of the International Bank was affixed but there was no other seal, and no recital or other indication that the execution of a sealed instrument was intended by the bank. In these circumstances, we hold the contract is not a sealed instrument. Sigler v. Mt. Vernon Bottling Co., 104 U.S.App.D.C. 260, 261 F.2d 378 (1958); Brown v. Commercial Fire Insurance Co., 21 App.D.C. 325, 336 (1903).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

312 F.2d 887, 114 U.S. App. D.C. 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albert-c-simonson-v-international-bank-of-washington-cadc-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack