Ramey v. Burrascano

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Ramey v. Burrascano

324 A.2d 687, 1974 D.C. App. LEXIS 264

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 20, 1974

DocketNo 7858

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 324 A.2d 687 (Ramey v. Burrascano) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ramey v. Burrascano, 324 A.2d 687, 1974 D.C. App. LEXIS 264 (D.C. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM :

The parti.es to this appeal executed and exchanged promissory notes in August 1965 payable by each to the other. The exchange was at appellant’s suggestion as an accommodation to him¹ and upon the promise that he would not negotiate appel-lee’s note but ultimately return it. Appellant did in fact negotiate appellee’s note, resulting in a judgment being entered in favor of the holder in due course against appellee for the amount of his note plus interest. Appellee now brings action on appellant’s note and the trial court, finding the note valid and the action not barred by the statute of limitations, entered judgment for appellee.

Appellant argues that the three year statute of limitations on simple contracts barred the action, but the note in question was under seal and therefore the period of limitation is 12 years. Phillips v. A & C Adjusters, Inc., D.C.App., 213 A.2d 586 (1965).

Appellant, citing Holcombe v. O’Sullivan, D.C.Mun.App., 93 A.2d 96 (1952), contends that because of the note in question was imprinted with the name of a Virginia bank it must be presumed to have been executed in Virginia and the law of that jurisdiction should apply. Pursuant to that law, he argues, the instrument must be deemed not under seal and [688]*688invalid for lack of consideration.² However, in Holcombe the only evidence as to the place of execution of the note was the writing on the note itself. Here, there is evidence other than the printing on the note (R. at 9-10) which overcomes the inference that the instrument was executed in Virginia, and supports the court’s finding of its validity.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM :

The parti.es to this appeal executed and exchanged promissory notes in August 1965 payable by each to the other. The exchange was at appellant’s suggestion as an accommodation to him¹ and upon the promise that he would not negotiate appel-lee’s note but ultimately return it. Appellant did in fact negotiate appellee’s note, resulting in a judgment being entered in favor of the holder in due course against appellee for the amount of his note plus interest. Appellee now brings action on appellant’s note and the trial court, finding the note valid and the action not barred by the statute of limitations, entered judgment for appellee.

Appellant argues that the three year statute of limitations on simple contracts barred the action, but the note in question was under seal and therefore the period of limitation is 12 years. Phillips v. A & C Adjusters, Inc., D.C.App., 213 A.2d 586 (1965).

Appellant, citing Holcombe v. O’Sullivan, D.C.Mun.App., 93 A.2d 96 (1952), contends that because of the note in question was imprinted with the name of a Virginia bank it must be presumed to have been executed in Virginia and the law of that jurisdiction should apply. Pursuant to that law, he argues, the instrument must be deemed not under seal and [688]*688invalid for lack of consideration.² However, in Holcombe the only evidence as to the place of execution of the note was the writing on the note itself. Here, there is evidence other than the printing on the note (R. at 9-10) which overcomes the inference that the instrument was executed in Virginia, and supports the court’s finding of its validity.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

324 A.2d 687, 1974 D.C. App. LEXIS 264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramey-v-burrascano-dc-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack