Anthony D. Duke and Diane D. Duke v. Donald T. Heppleston and Joan M. Heppleston, His Wife
This text of 386 F.2d 996 (Anthony D. Duke and Diane D. Duke v. Donald T. Heppleston and Joan M. Heppleston, His Wife) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The appellants have filed a motion to strike the brief of the appellees. We do not think that the brief is impertinent or prejudicial. The motion is denied.
The appeal on the merits involves the validity of a promissory note purporting to have been executed by an attorney-in-fact for the appellants with the contention being made that the power of attorney was invalid because of the failure to comply with the requirements of the law of New York where the power was executed. ■ This and the other questions in the ease were resolved, and we think properly, by the decision of the district court. Duke v. Heppleston, D.C. S.D.Fla., 258 F.Supp. 313. The judgment of the district court is
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
386 F.2d 996, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-d-duke-and-diane-d-duke-v-donald-t-heppleston-and-joan-m-ca5-1968.