davidaulloa/AmericanStories huggingface dataset:
Evening star., 1934-07-18
THos. ]. OWEN q SON. AuCTIoNEERs
l43l EYE ST. NV.

TRUSTEES SALE OF VALUABLE UN.
IMPROVED GROUND WITH BRICK
EoR4aMEsr EEofERINfE coRNER HFAF FE1aH4EEENTH fE sArH
r FoRMERLY Fo KNoWa S5 AS T isoosisos 90 fS
EIGHTEENTH STREET AND 1903 M
DUB sy ytae o II Sel esTts so aeed f6 H5
ct sea,. of the land records OF the District
Of Columbia. and at the. request Of the
party secured thereby. the undersigned
trustees win sell at public auction. In
front of the premises, on FRIDAY, THE
1854 AT THREE-THfRTY O'CLOCK PM.
the following described land and premises:
situate in the District of Columbia. and
DESIGNATED as and being lots ] and 81 in
Ebon c. Ingersolrs subdivision Of square
1870. as per plat recorded in Liber J. II. K,
folio lT9 of the records OF the once OF
the surveyor Of the District Of Columbia.
chase money to be paid In cash, balance
in two equal installments payable in one
and two years with interest at 5l5 per
centum per annum. payable semi i-annually
from day of sale secured by first deed
of trust upon the property sold. or all
deposit of 81 500 will be REQUIRED at time
OF sale. All conveyancing. recording. etc.
at cost of purchaser Terms of sale to be
complied with within thirty days from day
of sale otherwise the trustees reserve the
rfsht to resell the property, at the risk
and cost Of defaultinR purchaser, after f1ve
days advertisement Of such resale in some
RANDALL H. HAGNER.
A. BRTTTON BROWNE
jye,s.1f.1s.1e1s. 20 23.25.2o
Evening star., 1934-07-18
rHos. J. OWEN & SON. AUCTIoNEERs.
1431 EYE ST. NV.
TRUSTEES SALE OF VALUABLE FULLY
DETACHED BRICK-AND-S T o N z
RESIDENCE KNOWN AS PREMISES
1918 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE
NORTHWEST.

NORTHWEST.
BY virtue Of certain deed Of trust.
duly recorded In Liber No. 61S7, folio
293 ct seq. Of the land records of the
District OF Columbia. and at the request
OF the party secured thereby. the under
signed trustees VIII sell at public auction.
IN front of the premises. on Ekt1DAY
AID. 1894. AT FOUR-THIRTY O'CLOCK
PM the following-deseribed land and
premises. situate in the District of Colum-
bia. and designated as and being lots "a
end gs In Annie Z, r Stewarts sub
division OF square 113, as per plat re-
corded in the Office OF the surveyor for
the District OF Columbia. in Biber IL. at
folio 6: subject 20 the covenant that no
stable shall ever be erected, maintained or
used on said lots
Terms OF sale: one-third of the pur-
two equal tnStaliMents payable in one
and two years. with interest at 5ls per
eentum per Annum payable seni-annually
rom day of sale, secured by first deed OF
trust upon the property sold or all cash
at the option of the purchaser, de-
post Of SIS, 600 viii be required at time
Of sale. All conveyaneing. recording. etc.
at cost of purchaser. Terms of sale to be
complied with within thirty days from
day of sale otherwise the trustees reserve
the right to resell the property az the
risk and cost Of defaulting purchaser after
five DAYS advertisement of such resale
in some newspaper published in Wash
RANDALL Il HAoNER.
A. ERTrToN BROWNE,
man,,xa.apsoa a. oa a~ ~x "a 1Kestess-
Evening star., 1934-07-18
TEos j OWEN q SON, AUCTIoNEERs,
i43I EYE ST NV.

THos, }. OWEN q SON, AUCTIoNEERs,
i43I EYE ST. NV.
TRUSTEES SALE OF VALUABLE EogR-
AND-ONE- HALF STORY AND BASE
MENT BRICK BUILDING, yG 2TGq-
rS6p INa Known ESo SSoAsAfPR As PREMIsEs iaIl .
Iel3. 1915 AND 1917 c0NNECTI-
CUT AVENUE NORTHWEST, 49,.
BY virtue OF a certain oeee eq9i oi tFoSs, foSio
District Of Columbia, and al me reeges'
signed trustees win sell at public aaction'
in front Of the premises on s EFipAY' II11 !
foilowinS described land and premises sit
uate in the District Of Columbia, ane
designated as and being part OF lot %
as Der plat recorded in the once Of the
Liber j II K, at folio 37S; eeginninS
cut M W svena. ~ is e7 feet northwest from the
southwest corner Of lot 81 and running
thence northwe<terly alons the east npe
" 8esp soFnef AZ said ioe henee ner
eaStetly along the north line OF salo lot
SIS 80 Zee: TO an angle in the north line
an alley; thence southeriy along sato alley
and on the line of said lot 90 feet' tnenee
westerly TO q point that would be inter-
seeted hy line drawn at right aneies 70
oeginninR; thence southwesteriy on said
line drawn at right angles TO the hns
NJ said avenue 10 the beginning.
Terms OF sale. One-thtrd OF the pur-
chase money to paid in cash. balance IN
two eouaI tnStAllmentS payable IN one
and two years with interest az per
eentum per snnum, payable semi-annuaily
from day OF sale secured by first deed OF
trust upon the property sold, or all cash.
at the option Of the purchaser. de-
ooSit OF 81 {. 600 win be required at time
Of sale All eonveSaneinE recording, etc.
st cost Of purchaser Terms Of sale to
DC complied with within thirty DAYS from
day OF sale otherwise the trustees reserve
the right 10 resell the property. at the
risk and cost os defaulting purchaser. after
five days advertisement OF such resale
IN sogne newspaper published tn WASH
RANDALL H HAGNER.
A. RRTTToN BROWNE,
Jyo.s.1I.Ia.1e.1s.ao.aS.s42S.se
Evening star., 1934-07-18
THos. j. OWEN & SON, AUCTIoNEERS.
1431 EYE ST. NV.
TRUSTEES SALE OF VALUABLE FIVE
STORY BRICK OFFICE BUILDING:

TRUSTEES SALE OF VALUABLE FIVE
STORY BRICK OFFICE RulLDlNG:
KNOWN AS PREMISES 609 STREET
BY Virtue OF a certain deed Of trust duly
recorded In Liber No. 6329, fofio. 439. OF
the land records of the District of C1lum-
bia. and at the request of the party Sc
cured thereby the UNDERSIGNED trustees
will sell at public auction. IN 'front.' OF the
premises. ON TUESDAY. THE THlRI Y
FIRST DAY OF JULY. AID. 1884. Al
-FOUR O'CLOCK PM. the following
described land and premises, situate IN
the District OF Columbia and DESIGNATED
as part OF original lot in square 400
assessed as lot sd4 IN square 455.
Terms of sale: One-Ihird OF the pur-
chase money TO be paid in cash; balance
in two equal inStallments. payable IN one
and two years. with interest AZ SIX per
centum per annum. payable seml-annually
from day of sale. occurred by hrst 1eea o.
trust upon the property sold or all cash'
al the option Of rhe purchaser De
post Of 5000 90 will be required at time
OF sale. All conveyancins. recoroing. reVe-
Terms OF sale 10 be complied with within
30 days from day OF sale. otherwise me
trustees reserve the right TO resell tSe
property at the risk and cost OF oefauit-
ms purchaser. after flve Gays adNeI use
ment of such resale in some newspaper
published in washington. y, E,0,
HUVER I BROWN.
CHARLES B. LEE.
Evening star., 1934-07-18
. RARohTN no coLoRrp
sALE---suBURBAN.

NEARBY VA. a303 RUSSELL RD.-LoT
aboHt s0x22G; 5-r A. b modern bupEaiow.
See u and make as an offer. Rented. $42o
per annum
Potomac. Va cor, clifford and Mont
foaee~-BiE lot fenced 5-r. & b. modern
buneAjowl built about years; monthly
tenant; sacrinef for more than = 600
below cost on $500 cash and $37.50 mo,
tac.. int 20 or qlSa. -
EMALL COUNTRY PRoPERTIEs--Goop
chance for nest ees ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ton, in well matured, uneontested tax
decided faFmIets and lots In Laytonaville
glarkkbnrs. Poolesyille Rockville, Garrett
Fark DaTnstown Gen Echo Bethesda
ylney, Gaithershurg Potomac, Wheaton
Blalr. North kensington and Takoma Park
iCemmission TO real estate agents Pine
FOR week END diversion Have so at SIOu
up. OWNER Potomac J4s4
~ $50 BUYS A SUBSTANTIAL f-RooM
house. excellent condition: cleo, water and
sewer available; about = acres OF ground
fseine 800 Y. on. paved avenue. located
sialis VI asoo Nd Tbs RTePerty actually cost
erS DI. 4S0S. 1925 VT ave
Evening star., 1934-07-18
WANTED--REAL ESTATE.
RENT--STORES.

ella PA. AVE. N.w.--BASEMENT SHOP
&32 80, h..w n. janitor service. references
Apply SHANNON a. LuCHS CO.
IN DUPONT CIRCLE sEcTIoN--FIRsT-
floor store with double show windows. ap-
proximately 24x4Q it.; iavatoryi heat fur
nisheo Rent $50, u.o,,ro nna
Evening star., 1934-07-18
DALI Il. HAGNER CO.

ld.l Gunn. ave, DE. 5000.
TWO ATTRACTIVE ROOMS. SUITABLE
for a small store ONCE. near 18th ana
Penna. ave. NV. Very reasonable rent 10
WOODWARD, Realtor. 723 10th st. NV
Evening star., 1934-07-18

$ sALE-INvESTME PROPERTY.
A GOOD INCOME WITH SAFETY.
Brick one-story store IN good business
section, northwest. Leased TO good tenants
for three years at $50 per month. Owner
leaving the city will SaeTinee for SO. 600.
SHANNON 4 LUcHS Co.
1908 II ST. NV. Ma 2345.
Evening star., 1934-07-18
CHAPTER XVII.

LIT WILL be better that he finds
~ you here alone" whispered
Shireen hastily to Diana as
Il she heard the Cobra approach
Evening star., 1934-07-18
WANTED-LOTS

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY PARK. STATE
exact location dimensions cash price and
also terms. Address Box 1900. Star ONCE
Evening star., 1934-07-18
OFFICES AND STUDIOS.
SALE.---LoTS.

HOME SITE. BEAUTIFUL SUMMIT PARK.
8 minutes to Capitol High elevation, view.
improvements. Less than cost. OWNER
Address Box 224-Q star once. 1S'
The Washington times., 1934-07-26
CONTRACTS, LEX FORI,
LEX LOCI CONTRACTUS

/. Where a statutory right Of
action is RiUen tOhich did nOt
exist at common LGw, and the
statue giving the right also fixes
the time Uithin tOhich the right
may Be enforced, the time so
fixed becomes a limitation or
condition upon the right Of Gc-
tion, and wiu control no matter
in UhGt forum the action is
brought. The exceptional rule,
howeUsr, that, whers a statutory
right is giUen subject to a spe.
cial Limitation, such Limitation
inhsres in the right and follows
it into another Jurisdiction, SOherG
it is sought to be enforced to the
exclusion of the statute Of Emi-
tGtiOns of the forum, cannot be
extended to make the general
statute of limitations Of the State
Ohsrs the liability arose operate
extrG-teTTitOridlIy.
2. The effect of the proUision
in the various st0tutes requiring
an acknowledgment or promise
to be in writing in order to re-
move the bar Of the statute
simply renders a Writins neces-
sGry as a means Of proof and
does not affect any alteration in
the legal construction to be put
upon such acknowledgment or
pr0mises.
3. The statute Of Limitations
being a lGw of process and OP-
Grating upon the remedy merely,
questiOns arising under it are
determined by the E0W of the
forum.
4. The promise Of one Of the
joint makers of note prevents
the statute of limitations from
running in favor of the other.
In the case Of Robinson, vs.
Ward, at Law No. 81358, a suit was
brought on two promissory notes,
each note being signed by the two
defendants, and dated April 2,
1927, and July %, 1927, reSpec'
lively, the said notes being payable
on demand.
To this declaration a plea Of
the statute of limitations was
filed, which was answered in turn
by a replication and amended
replication alleging, in substance,
that on the 5th of April, 1880,
defendant F. j. Ward made in
writing an acknowledgment of
the said notes and a promise in
writing to pay the same.
Service of this suit has been
had only upon the defendant M.
K. Ward, who you will note was
not the writer of the foregoing
promise or acknowledgment.
The cause now comes on for
hearing before Mr.. Justice Joseph
w. Cox on a demurrer to fore.
going replication.
The Washington times., 1934-07-26
State Laws Cited

The demurrer of the defendant
M. K. Ward contends, in sub.
stance, that since the contract
is shown by the pleading to be a
New York contract, it is governed
by the laws of the State of New
York as to character and effect
Of said contract, and that the
defendant M. K. Ward CO
defendant, cannot be said to
have been vested with any agency
by virtue of the said contract to
bind her by any new promise
which he may have made.
This theory ignores entirely the
well settled rule that the character
and extent Of the remedy is gov
erned by the law Of the forum,
not by the law Of the place where
the contract was made. See IL
C. j. 446-447.
'"The character and extent Of
the remedy is governed by the
law of the forum or court, ex.
cept where the remedy has been
created inferentially with the
right by statute, and has become
q part Of it. Subject to this ex-
ceptiOn the law Of the forum
controls, as the form of the
remedy, statutes Of limitations,
ETC."
See also 1913 Am. st. Rep. u
and again at % Enc. Pleading
and Practice, 1888, where it Il
said, "The Lex fori governs in al
matters relating to the remedy
and the course of procedure" and
from the same work at page 1885:
$50 a statute Of limitation Is gen
orally regarded as affecting the
remedy and hence this defense Il
governed by the law Of the forum,
citing many cases including Fed
eral Supreme Court cases.
In the instant case suit has beer
brought upon a valid and SubSiSt
ing obligation. The defendant
has interposed as an obstacle tc
the recovery the statute Of limita
tions of this district. The plaintiff
in turn has replied that one oi
the defendants previous to the ex
piration Of the statutory period
had made in writing an acknowl
edgment of the notes sued upor
and q promise in writing to pay
the same.
The suit is upon the origina
obligation, not upon the new
promise. All the matters pertain
ing to the remedy are to be de
cided in accordance with the Law
Of the forum. The obligation
sued upon was and is joint ant
several, and the court IS not con
cerned with anything else except
the determination Of the matter
Of limitations according to thu
rules Of the forum.
The Washington times., 1934-07-26
Contract Made the Subject
Of Courts Findings

land, in the same manner, an ad-
mission by one Is an admission
by ALL" The foregoing was also
a case of q joint and several
promissory note, wherein one Of
the defendants had made q pay
ment within the statutory period,
See Flannery VS.. Maine, etc., 3
App. D. c. 395; White VS.. Conn.,,
Gen. Life ms. Co., "a App. D. C.
46O.
It must be borne in mind that
the suit, in such cases as this
one, is brought on the original
obligation, not upon the new
promise. See 3 A L r 674.
Thomas VS. ClarkSon, 1875 Ga. 70,
81 s E II, 6 L N s $50 $4,000
was a suit upon notes, made in
Alabama and intended to be per
formed in Alabama, brought in
Georgia. It was held that where
the defense Of limitations Is in.
terpoSed in the Georgia court, the
Georgia statute Of limitations is
to be applied and the Alabama
statute is immaterial.
The court in its opinion said
"The ruling that the Geor.
gia statute applies) rests in the
inherent right Of the State to
prescribe the remedies to be
applied in the enforcement Of
contracts through the agency
Of its courts. 1t Is perfectly
reasonable that the State Of
the forum should make it's own
limitations Of time within which
suits upon a given class Of
contracts may be instituted in
its courts, or make the rules
governing the ,admissibility or
sufficency Of evidence, or pre-.
scribe the form Of procedure
to be applied-NOthinS Is refer.
able to the laws Of other
States as to when or how suits
on contracts Of such States
shall be commenced or prose-
NUSNW Vi uVW bNCy SuOH UG
proved in the courts Of this
State. Those things are held
to fall uner the operation Of .
the uniform rule intended to
apply to all cases alike, whether
the suit be upon q contract Of
this State or Of another State"
The case of Flowers VS.. Fore
man, 81 U s 1872, 16 L e 405, was
an action Of asSumpsit brought in
the U. 8. Circuit Court in Mary
land to recover damages alleged to
have been sustained by a breach
Of warranty contained in a deed
Of certain lands in Louisiana. The
defense interposed was the Mary
land statute Of limitations, to the
effect that no action should be
brought in such matters more
than three years after the right Of
action had accrued.
The Washington times., 1934-07-26

long TO the ma
tional conference, which during
the A years of its existence, has
met each year during the week
preceding the convention Of the
American Bar Association.
Mr.. Inlay has been a member
OF the conference for Is years
and has been on the committee
on uniform firearms laws and the
committee on uniform mechanics
lein laws.
While the conference is not a
part of the American Bar Asso'
citation, it is closely affiliated with
the national organization and its
work is sponsored by that body.
The first signal recognition Of
the work Of this conference was
in its Uniform Negotiable 1nstru-
ments Law, which is in effect in
most of the States of the United
States.
The Washington times., 1934-07-26
Time in Dispute

There was q conSidera b le
amount Of dispute as to when the
right of action accrued, the test
being when the plaintiffs, or other
privies, were evicted from the
property in question in Louisiana.
The court fixed a particular date
when it considered an eviction
has occurred. testing the matter
by Louisiana law. The opinion
closes by stating: "The defendant
relies upon the statute of limita-
tions of Maryland as his defense
to prevent recovery. We think it
must prevail and that the court
below, in giving to the jury such
an instruction, committed no
error"
The case Of Obear VS.. First
National Bank Of Birmingham, 81
Ga. 587, IS s. E. 335, was an action
upon a promiSsory note executed
and payable in Alabama dated
February 9, 1888, and payable on
demnd. The suit was filed April
II, 1894.
The plaintiff alleged payments
on account on August z and Au-
gust %, 1888, and further alleged
that by the law Of Alabama partial
payments upon q note not barred
by the statute operate as a recog-
milton Of the debt, and establish
q new date for the commence
ment Of the period Of limitations.
The defendant demurred upon
the ground that the facts stated
in the declaration did not take
the note out of the statute Of
limitations and that the case is
governed by the statute Of limita'
tions Of Georgia, and not Ala
bama.
The demurrer was overruled
and q Judgment given for the
plaintiff. On appeal this judg'
ment was reversed. The Georgia
statute is six years on notes. The
notes were demand notes and pay
able Immediately.
At 80 l. r r, Ss5 the Supreme
Court of Georgia, after stating
that the question is whether the
law Of Alabama or Of Georgia is
to determine the effect Of the
partial payments says:
"A law prescribing the man.
ner in which a new promise, or
q payment from which such a
promise will be implied, shall
be evidenced in order to extend
the period within which suit
may be brought upon q con-
tract, relates to the remedy, and
does not affect the intrinsic
validity Of the promise. The
question Of what evidence shall
be required for this purpose In
an action upon the contract Is
one thing; the question wheth-
er . promise not 50 evidenced
is valid or not is another and
different thing"
The Court then states exactly
the converse of the principal case
''UpOn the grounds that com.
lance with the requirements Of
the statute does not constitute
the contract, but that the stat
ute preSuppOses an existing law.
full contract, and affects only
the remedy for the violation Of
The Washington times., 1934-07-26
Rule in New York

Several English and American
cases support this principle, see
~ c B 801: SO Conn. 80; 8 H L
Cas-. /; AZ Ill. App. 332; 9 Bush
460.
The statute Of limitations Of the
State Of New York allows suits on
notes to be brought within six
years from the time the right Of
action accrues. See N Y C P A
Sec. 48.
In Solomon VS.. Compagnie Gen.
erale Transallantique 80 Fed End
283 ID c S DN NY 1920 there
were libels in admiralty for dam
ages alleged to have been done to
goods by sea water. The suits
were upon bills Of lading given in
France, which provided that all
litigations arising out Of the con
tract or bill Of lading should be
adjudged according to the French
law at the tribunal Of the place
indicated in the bills Of lading
The defendant claimed the
French statute Of limitations
which was one year, not only went
to the remedy but extinguished
the right and an expert in French
law testified to the latter effect
The decision was nevertheless fol
the plaintiff, the court holding
that the expression in the French
statute "Sont prescrite" means
"are barred" and are extin
guished. The intent to establish
q shorter or q different limitation
than the right given by statute
must clearly appear from the con
tract itself. Such is not the case
here.
The foregoing case cited Dorfi
VS.. Toya, ia App. Div. 278, 18t
N. Y. s. 174, which was a suit
to recover prepaid freight, the
ship carrying the goods having
been sunk by an enemy subma
rine. A defense interposed was a
provision in the bill Of lading that
"the contract shall be governed
by the flag Of the vessel carry
ing the goods" that the carrying
vessel was a Spanish ship, and
therefor Spanish statutes of limi
tation applied.
The lower court decided for the
defendant, but this was reversed
upon appeal, the Appellate Divi
sion quoting from Mill VS.. Bren'
ham, 68 N. Y. 83, as follows:
ut is well settled in this State
that a plea of the statute of
limitations Of the country where
the contract is made is no bar
to a suit brought in a foreign
tribunal and that the lex fOri
governs all questions arising
under that statute"
In Miller VS.. Brennan, Supra
a suit was brought in New York
on California judgment. The
plea was that under the Cali
fornia law suits on foreign judg
mentS had to be commenced
within five years after the rendi
ton of the judgments. It was con
tended that the California statute
had extinguished the judgment
after five years. In overruling this
contention the Court Of Appeals
used the language quoted in
Miller VS.. Brennan. and later
quoted by the Appellate Division
in Dorff VS.. Toya.
The Washington times., 1934-07-26
Law of Forum Holds

Lamberton VS.. Grant "a, Maine
5O8, 49, Att. 1877, states that the
statutes Of limitations are laws
Of process, and if they do not ex-
tinguish the right itself, are
deemed to operate upon the
remedy merely, and all questions
arising under them must be deter
mined by the law Of the forum,
and not by the law Of the Situs Of
the contract.
The instant suit is upon the
original promise, there is admitted
to be a valid and SubslSting obi"
CATION, the bar of limitations set
up is the statute of this jurisdlc-
tion, the plaintiffs reply that a
letter of one Of the defendants
takes the case out of the operation
Of our statute Is to be determined
as q matter of evidence, plainly q
matter affecting the remedy, ana
Is therefore to be decided by our
law, and our law Is clearly in IA
vor of the plaintiffs position
herein.
After hearing, Mr.. Justice Cox
filed the following memorandum
"The question presented 10
whether the written acknOwledg:
ment and new promise Of one OF
the joint makers Of the note
sued on prevents the running OF
the statute Of limitations as to
the other joint maker.
"The statute Of limitations be-
ing D law Of process and Operat-
ing upon the remedy merely,
questions arising under it are to
be determined by the law Of the
forum.
"The decisions Of our local
courts fail to make It entirely
clear how the question should be
decided in this jurisdiction, but
in view of the Court Of Appeals
in White vs.. Connecticut General
Life Insurance Co., "a App. d. C.
46O, 46S, 469, by which I feel
bound, am constrained to &C
cept the contention Of the plain"
tiff that the promise by one Of
the joint makers prevents the
statute Of limitations from run.
ming in favor Of the other.
"The demurrer to the plain
tiff's amended replication Is &C.
cOrdingIy Overruled."
The plaintiff was represented by
Edward Stafford AMI the deten
dant by George e. Sullivan.