Fowler v. Zimmerman

Decided March 2, 1914

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · decided 1914-03-02

Hearing upon, motion by the appellee to dismiss or affirm. The Court in the opinion stated the facts as follows: The case has been submitted on motion to dismiss or affirm. The action is upon a promissory note for $350 executed December 30, 1910, and due eighteen months after date, with 6 per cent interest per annum. The declaration filed in the municipal court was supported by affidavit, to which no objection has been urged, is amply sufficient.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently August 1949

1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

Relies on Slater v. Van Der Hoogt · Knight v. W. T. Walker Brick Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Judgment affirmed · Decided 1914-03-02

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Chief Justice Shefakd

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court:

¶21. The ground of the motion to dismiss is that the appeal noted was from the judgment denying the motion to vacate, and not from the judgment on the note. We are of the opinion that the notice of appeal sufficiently indicated the final judgment on the note, and the motion is denied.

¶32. The motion to affirm is granted.

¶4“The written agreement, the execution of which the defendants do- not deny, purports to embody the entire transaction, and there is no such ambiguity in it as would warrant the introduction of parol evidence in explanation of its recitals, under any established exception to' the time-honored rule that excludes such evidence in explanation or contradiction of the terms of a written instrument.” Slater v. Van der Hoogt, 23 App. D. C. 417, 420. See also Knight v. W. T. Walker Brick Co. 23 App. D. C. 519, 525.

¶5The judgment is affirmed, with costs. Affirmed.