Mayhew v. Boyd
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from Baltimore County Court. Assumpsit by the appellant, as holder, against the appellee, as endorser, of a promissory note for §900, drawn by one W. B. Pyfer, in favor of one Robert Close, dated October 25th, 1848, and payable in one year after date. Plea non-assumpsit. Exception. The snaking, endorsement and protest of the 'note, and due notice thereof to the defendant were admitted.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Baltimore County Court. Assumpsit by the appellant, as holder, against the appellee, as endorser, of a promissory note for §900, drawn by one W. B. Pyfer, in favor of one Robert Close, dated October 25th, 1848, and payable in one year after date. Plea non-assumpsit. Exception. The snaking, endorsement and protest of the 'note, and due notice thereof to the defendant were admitted. The defendant then offered in evidence a mortgage executed by Pyfer, the maker of the note, to Mayhew, the plaintiff, of certain household furniture in a hotel in Baltimore city. This mortgage bears the…
1Opinion of the CourtMason, J.
The record in this case shows, that the endorsement by the defendant of Pyfer’s notes to the plaintiff was based upon the security afforded by the mortgage, and therefore the mortgage may be regarded as the consideration of the agreement into which the surety entered when he consented to endorse the notes. The terms of the mortgage, therefore, must be strictly complied with by the plaintiff in order to bind the defendant as endorser. One of those terms is, there shall be no sale of the mortgaged property until default of the principal debtor to pay the uotes upon their maturity. We think this…
2Cited by26 opinions
- County of Glenn v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- George v. AndrewsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1883
- Durrell v. FarwellTexas Supreme Court · 1895
- Brennan v. ClarkNebraska Supreme Court · 1890
- Wehrung v. DenhamOregon Supreme Court · 1903
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.