Canfield v. McIlwaine ex rel. Wood
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City. The facts of the case are sufficiently presented in the opinion of the Court. The nar., beside the common money counts, contained the following special count, being the seventh: That the defendants, on the 23d day of May, 1866, by their promissory note or due bill, now overdue, promised to pay to one Samuel Turbutt §1000, on demand, but did not pay the same.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City. The facts of the case are sufficiently presented in the opinion of the Court. The nar., beside the common money counts, contained the following special count, being the seventh: That the defendants, on the 23d day of May, 1866, by their promissory note or due bill, now overdue, promised to pay to one Samuel Turbutt §1000, on demand, but did not pay the same. That on or about December 6th, 1866, said Samuel Turbutt endorsed, assigned and transferred said due bill to said plaintiffs, or order, and delivered the same; and that on or about May…
1Opinion of the CourtMaulsby, J.
This suit is brought on a due bill, made by the appellants, (defendants below,) payable to Samuel Turbutt, and by him assigned, in blank, in December, 1866, and delivered to S. O. Mcllwaine, who, in April, 1867, formed a partnership with Claudius L. Goodwin, when the due bill passed to the firm, and became part of the partnership effects. In November, 1867, McIlwaine delivered the due bill to Algernon R. Wood, for whose use the suit is brought, with the blank over the name of Turbutt filled up, “pay Mcllwaine, Goodwin & Co., or order.” The defendants had notice of the assignments. After the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Chesley v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1845
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hampson v. Owens ex rel. StowCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1881
- Pierce v. Gillet & Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1935
- Stoll v. AltonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1947