324 A.2d 687 | D.C. | 1974
The parti.es to this appeal executed and exchanged promissory notes in August 1965 payable by each to the other. The exchange was at appellant’s suggestion as an accommodation to him
Appellant argues that the three year statute of limitations on simple contracts barred the action, but the note in question was under seal and therefore the period of limitation is 12 years. Phillips v. A & C Adjusters, Inc., D.C.App., 213 A.2d 586 (1965).
Appellant, citing Holcombe v. O’Sullivan, D.C.Mun.App., 93 A.2d 96 (1952), contends that because of the note in question was imprinted with the name of a Virginia bank it must be presumed to have been executed in Virginia and the law of that jurisdiction should apply. Pursuant to that law, he argues, the instrument must be deemed not under seal and
Affirmed.
. The notes were under seal, in the amount of $15,000, and of nine months duration, although Harney’s note came due several days prior to that of Burrascano.
. Compare D.C.Code 1973, §§ 28:3-302 and 28:3-803(c); 28:3-306(c). These statutory provisions under the circumstances here would preclude Ramey from asserting the defense of want of consideration.