Somerville v. Brown
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from Baltimore County Court, This was an action of assumpsit docketed by consent to November term, 1844, by the appellee against the appellant. The declaration contained the common counts, to which the defendants pleaded the general issue. The verdict and judgment were' for the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Baltimore County Court, This was an action of assumpsit docketed by consent to November term, 1844, by the appellee against the appellant. The declaration contained the common counts, to which the defendants pleaded the general issue. The verdict and judgment were' for the plaintiff. At the trial of the cause, the plaintiff proved the following note of the defendant. uBaltimore, 1st Nov’r, 1841. $ 822 19. Two years and six months after date, I promise to pay W. T. Somerville, or order, eight hundred and twenty-two dollars and nineteen cents, for value received. R. Somerville.” And…
1Opinion of the Court 1
Dorsey, J.,
delivered the following dissenting opinion.
The correctness of the court’s decision in overruling the appellant’s objection to the testimony of Charles Tiernan, being conceded, the only remaining inquiry is, did the county court err in refusing to grant the appellant’s second prayer, “ that if the jury believe that Charles . Tiernan at the time when this attachment was issued, and when he applied for the insolvent laws, was the holder of the note now in suit, then the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this cause.”
To prove the appellant’s right to the instruction denied to him…
Also in this document: Opinion of the Court · Chambers.
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Baker v. WheatonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Hull v. BlakeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
- Chase, Grew & Co. v. James Haughton & Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1844
3Cited by2 opinions
- Manahan v. SammonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1853
- Cruett v. JenkinsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1880