Philip Stearns v. Dino Formant, T/a Formant Realty Co.

D.C. Circuit

Philip Stearns v. Dino Formant, T/a Formant Realty Co.

249 F.2d 527, 102 U.S. App. D.C. 12, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4036

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 7, 1957

Docket13669

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 249 F.2d 527 (Philip Stearns v. Dino Formant, T/a Formant Realty Co.) 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

Philip Stearns v. Dino Formant, T/a Formant Realty Co., 249 F.2d 527, 102 U.S. App. D.C. 12, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4036 (D.C. Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A promissory note for $7,500, executed by one Louise Austin as a part of the purchase price of certain realty and secured by her deed of trust thereon, was assigned by the payee to Stearns, Platshon and Werner. They directed foreclosure when default in payment occurred. At the ensuing sale the pledged property brought only $1,000, which failed by far to cover the unpaid balance and the costs. Stearns and his associates then sued to recover the deficiency from the Formants, Miss Austin’s employers, alleging they were the real parties in interest and that she executed the papers for them as their agent. The District Court entered summary judgment for the defendants. This appeal followed.

It is provided by §§ 28-119 and 120, D.C.Code (1951), that one is not liable on a negotiable instrument unless his signature appears thereon, made by him or his duly authorized agent. The note involved here bears only the signature of Miss Austin as maker, with no indication that she executed it in other than her individual capacity. The appellees did not sign the instrument, either personally or by an agent. Hence, under the Code provisions, they are not liable for the deficiency.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

A promissory note for $7,500, executed by one Louise Austin as a part of the purchase price of certain realty and secured by her deed of trust thereon, was assigned by the payee to Stearns, Platshon and Werner. They directed foreclosure when default in payment occurred. At the ensuing sale the pledged property brought only $1,000, which failed by far to cover the unpaid balance and the costs. Stearns and his associates then sued to recover the deficiency from the Formants, Miss Austin’s employers, alleging they were the real parties in interest and that she executed the papers for them as their agent. The District Court entered summary judgment for the defendants. This appeal followed.

It is provided by §§ 28-119 and 120, D.C.Code (1951), that one is not liable on a negotiable instrument unless his signature appears thereon, made by him or his duly authorized agent. The note involved here bears only the signature of Miss Austin as maker, with no indication that she executed it in other than her individual capacity. The appellees did not sign the instrument, either personally or by an agent. Hence, under the Code provisions, they are not liable for the deficiency.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 F.2d 527, 102 U.S. App. D.C. 12, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4036, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/philip-stearns-v-dino-formant-ta-formant-realty-co-cadc-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack