Wilkinson v. Van Senden

D.C. Circuit

Wilkinson v. Van Senden

45 App. D.C. 191, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2670

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 24, 1916

DocketNo. 2910

StatusPublished

This text of 45 App. D.C. 191 (Wilkinson v. Van Senden) 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

Wilkinson v. Van Senden, 45 App. D.C. 191, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2670 (D.C. Cir. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Robb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

We think the above affidavit was sufficient, under the rule announced in Codington v. Standard Bank, 40 App. D. C. 409, and Hazen v. Van Senden, 43 App. D. C. 161. The fraudulent representations are fully set forth, and it is unequivocally averred that the plaintiff, when he took the note, knew of the conditions under which it had been procured. This is not a statement on information and belief, but a statement of fact.

The judgment must be reversed, with costs, and the ease remanded for further proceedings. Reversed and remamded.

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

Mr. Justice Robb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

We think the above affidavit was sufficient, under the rule announced in Codington v. Standard Bank, 40 App. D. C. 409, and Hazen v. Van Senden, 43 App. D. C. 161. The fraudulent representations are fully set forth, and it is unequivocally averred that the plaintiff, when he took the note, knew of the conditions under which it had been procured. This is not a statement on information and belief, but a statement of fact.

The judgment must be reversed, with costs, and the ease remanded for further proceedings. Reversed and remamded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 App. D.C. 191, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilkinson-v-van-senden-cadc-1916.