Drake v. General Finance Corporation of Louisiana, 9692.
| Decision Date | 31 May 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 9692.,9692. |
| Parties | DRAKE v. GENERAL FINANCE CORPORATION OF LOUISIANA, Inc., et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Mrs. Sarah Drake (in propria persona), of San Antonio, Tex., and New Orleans, La., for appellant.
Jones T. Prowell and Richard T. McBride, both of New Orleans, La., for appellees.
Before SIBLEY, HUTCHESON, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff-appellant sued for damages for loss of her automobile and her health, alleging that she had signed by trickery a bill of sale to her automobile, the instrument being represented as a note for a loan, she being in bad physical condition which was worsened into a nervous breakdown. The defendants made general denial and for a special defense set up that the claims made in this suit had been settled and compromised in full. A trial was had before the judge on the special defense. A witness for the defendants testified in great detail to the pendency of a suit in a State court by the plaintiff against the defendants for the taking of her automobile and consequent injury to her health, and of a suit by the defendants against the petitioner to foreclose a note and mortgage upon the automobile; that the day before sale of the automobile under foreclosure, after communicating with plaintiff's counsel, plaintiff and witness agreed on a settlement of the whole matter which was to be reduced to writing and signed the following morning. At that time plaintiff's counsel was present and advised her against signing the agreement, but she did so, saying she wished to save her automobile from foreclosure. Her counsel was given a copy of the agreement. The foreclosure was stopped, and the note and mortgage cancelled and surrendered a day or so later. Collateral to the compromise agreement, which contained a bill of sale of the car to defendants, they gave an obligation back to plaintiff to retransfer it to her on her paying $500 at a stated date. This date was extended several times, but she never redeemed the car. The compromise agreement recites the pendency of the two suits, the purpose to settle all differences, and the agreement to withdraw the foreclosure and cancel the mortgage on the one side and to withdraw the suit for damages on the other, with a transfer of title to the automobile. It concludes with the statement that it is intended to be a full, complete and final compromise of any and all differences and claims of any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Ass'n of Greeting Card Publishers v. U.S. Postal Service
...this appeal, whatever its implication. See Thomson v. Gaskill, 315 U.S. 442, 62 S.Ct. 673, 86 L.Ed. 951 (1942); Drake v. Finance Corp. of Louisiana, 119 F.2d 588 (5th Cir. 1941).134 November 7 Minutes, at 1-2.135 Compare Fleming v. Van Der Loo, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 74, 80, 160 F.2d 906, 912 (194......
-
United States v. Rubenstein, 358.
...record before it. See, e. g., Henneford v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 303 U.S. 17, 19, 58 S.Ct. 415, 82 L.Ed. 619; Drake v. General Finance Corporation, 5 Cir., 119 F.2d 588, 589; 4 C.J.S., Appeal and Error, § ...
-
Smith v. United States
...F.2d 698; cf. Chicago & Eastern Illinois R. Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 7 Cir. 1958, 261 F.2d 394, 402; Drake v. General Finance Corporation of Louisiana, Inc., 5 Cir. 1941, 119 F.2d 588. Nor can the Court consider the new factual material included in the brief of the amicus. Chesapeake & Ohio......
-
United States v. Bennett
...before it. See, e. g., Henneford v. Northern Pacific Railway Co., 303 U.S. 17, 19, 58 S.Ct. 415, 82 L.Ed. 619; Drake v. General Finance Corporation, 5 Cir., 119 F.2d 588, 589; 4 C.J. S., Appeal and Error, § 1206. 5 Lynch v. Oregon Lumber Co., 9 Cir., 108 F.2d 283, 285-286; Farris v. Interst......