Hutchison v. Colgate & Co.

District of Columbia

Hutchison v. Colgate & Co.

280 F. 1020, 52 App. D.C. 46, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 1908

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedMay 1, 1922

DocketNo. 3708

StatusPublished

This text of 280 F. 1020 (Hutchison v. Colgate & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hutchison v. Colgate & Co., 280 F. 1020, 52 App. D.C. 46, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 1908 (D.D.C. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

VAN ORSDEB, Associate Justice.

This appeal is from a judgment rendered upon the insufficiency of an affidavit of defense under the seventy-third rule.

The essential averment of the affidavit is made by appellant, defendant below, upon “information and belief,” and the other aver-ments are made with a disclaimer of knowledge of the facts relative thereto. It was therefore incumbent upon defendant to allege his ability to prove at the trial the facts upon which he based his defense, which was not done. The affidavit, in the last analysis, is made upon information and belief, without a tender of proof of the facts upon which defendant intends to rely. This is insufficient. Woodmen v.Davis, 48 App. D. C. 614; Hazen v. Van Senden, 43 App. D. C. 161.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

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

VAN ORSDEB, Associate Justice.

This appeal is from a judgment rendered upon the insufficiency of an affidavit of defense under the seventy-third rule.

The essential averment of the affidavit is made by appellant, defendant below, upon “information and belief,” and the other aver-ments are made with a disclaimer of knowledge of the facts relative thereto. It was therefore incumbent upon defendant to allege his ability to prove at the trial the facts upon which he based his defense, which was not done. The affidavit, in the last analysis, is made upon information and belief, without a tender of proof of the facts upon which defendant intends to rely. This is insufficient. Woodmen v.Davis, 48 App. D. C. 614; Hazen v. Van Senden, 43 App. D. C. 161.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 F. 1020, 52 App. D.C. 46, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 1908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutchison-v-colgate-co-dcd-1922.