Wilkinson v. Van Senden

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit April 24, 1916

Wilkinson v. Van Senden, 45 App. D.C. 191 (D.C. Cir. 1916)

1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2670

Opinion of the Court

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.

Reference

Full Case Name: WILKINSON v. VAN SENDEN
Status: Published
Syllabus: Bills and Notes; Pleading; Affidavits of Defense. Statements in an affidavit of defense in an action on a promissory note, that the note was procured from the defendant by fraudulent representations which are fully set forth in the affidavit, and that the plaintiff, when he took the note, knew of the conditions under which it had been procured, are sufficient to entitle the defendant to a trial. (Following Codington v. Standard Bank, 40 App. D. C. 409 and Hazen v. Van Senden, 43 App. D. C. 161.)