Wilkinson v. Van Senden

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Decided April 24, 1916

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · decided 1916-04-24

Hearing on an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia entered for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The Court in the opinion stated the facts as follows: This is an appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff, Herman W. Van Senden, appellee here, in the supreme court of the District under the Y3d rule.

Relies on 40 App. D.C. 409 - Codington v. Standard Bank of Canada · 43 App. D.C. 161 - Hazen v. Van Senden

Reversed · Decided 1916-04-24

Mr. Justice Robb

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court:

¶2We 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.

¶3The judgment must be reversed, with costs, and the ease remanded for further proceedings. Reversed and remamded.