Interstate Bankers Corp.. v. Kennedy
| Decision Date | 13 July 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 86.,86. |
| Parties | INTERSTATE BANKERS CORPORATION v. KENNEDY et al. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from the Municipal Court for the District of Columbia, Small Claims Branch.
Action by Interstate Bankers' Corporation against Mary Louise Kennedy and Mercedes Duffy to recover on negotiable promissory notes. From an adverse judgment, plaintiffs appeal.
Reversed and remanded, with instructions. fifteen per cent, was not unreasonable and is not evidence of bad faith. 1
Section 28-407, Code of 1940, identical with the corresponding section of the Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law, provides that a holder in due course ‘may enforce payment of the instrument for the full amount thereof’.
To constitute one a holder in due course it is not necessary that full consideration be paid. 2 Nor is the failure of an executory consideration a defense against such a holder. 3
May the judge presiding in the Small Claims and Conciliation Branch of the Municipal Court ignore established rules of substantive law in the administration of justice? One section of the Act of Congress establishing that branch, Section 11-808(b), Code of 1940, provides: ‘The judge shall conduct the trial in such manner as to do substantial justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law, and shall not be bound by the statutory provisions or rules of practice, procedure, pleading, or evidence, except such provisions relating to privileged communications'.
The term ‘substantial justice’ has been defined in judicial opinions as justice administered according to the rules of substantive law notwithstanding errors of procedure which do not deprive litigants of substantive rights.
In an early case 4 it was said: ‘The substantial justice spoken of in the statute, is substantial legal justice, to be ascertained and determined by fixed rules and positive statutes, and not the abstract and varying notions of equity which may be entertained by each individual’.
In later cases similar views have been expressed. 5
The purpose of the legislation was to secure the prompt and inexpensive adjudication of small claims, free from technicalities of procedural law; that persons unable to employ counsel and not versed in the law might sue or defend without encountering the delays and pitfalls which too often distinguish law from justice. In our opinion Congress did not intend to deprive litigants of their lawful claims or defenses, or to substitute the abstract conception of justice of an individual judge for recognized rules of substantive law.
It is unfortunate that these appellees must pay in full for a service not performed. But their relief lies not in the defense of this action but in affirmative action against those responsible for non-performance.
The cases will be remanded with instructions to vacate the judgments, and to enter judgments for the amounts due upon the respective notes.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Romero
...substantive law notwithstanding error of procedure which do not deprive litigants of substantive rights.' Interstate Bankers Corporation v. Kennedy, 33 A.2d 165 (D.C.Mun.App.1943). (a) Defendant was denied a complete transcript on In the pre-appeal order, paragraph No. 2 states: The defenda......
-
Bobula v. Coppedge
...October 1, 1939. 6See Rules effective October 2, 1944. 7Hodgkins v. Beckner, Mun.App.D.C., 32 A.2d 113; Interstate Bankers Corporation v. Kennedy, Mun.App.D.C., 33 A.2d 165; Marvin's Credit v. Kitching, Mun.App.D.C., 34 A.2d 866. 8Shaffer v. Bowes, Mun.App.D.C., 31 A.2d 690; Colwell v. Ston......
-
Russell v. Universal Acceptance Corporation
...it would have been against the payee of the note. Fabrizio v. Anderson, D.C.Mun.App., 62 A.2d 314 (1948); Interstate Bankers Corporation v. Kennedy, D.C.Mun.App., 33 A.2d 165 (1943). This is true even if the purchaser of the note had full knowledge at the time of the purchase that the consi......
-
Price v. Quill.
...in the branch, see Hodgkins v. Beckner, D.C.Mun.App., 32 A.2d 113; Maktos v. Hill, D.C.Mun.App., 32 A.2d 706; Interstate Bankers Corp. v. Kennedy, D.C.Mun.App., 33 A.2d 165; Potomac Small Loan Co. v. Myles, D.C.Mun.App., 34 A.2d 609; Marvin's Credit, Inc., v. Kitching, D.C.Mun.App., 34 A.2d......