Allstan's Adm'r. v. Contee's Ex'r.
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Error to Frederick County Court. This was an action of assumpsit, brought on the 23d of July 1812, by the surviving partner of J. and 6. Mistan, (whose administrator the plaintiff in error is,) against the executor of the surviving partner of T. and A. Contee, (the defendant in error.) The declaration contained five counts. The first for ar-tides properly chargeable in account. The second for mo - ney laid out, expended and paid. The third for money had and received.
Read the full summary
Error to Frederick County Court. This was an action of assumpsit, brought on the 23d of July 1812, by the surviving partner of J. and 6. Mistan, (whose administrator the plaintiff in error is,) against the executor of the surviving partner of T. and A. Contee, (the defendant in error.) The declaration contained five counts. The first for ar-tides properly chargeable in account. The second for mo - ney laid out, expended and paid. The third for money had and received. The fourth for money lent and advanced; and the fifth on an insimul computassent in the life-time of T. and A. Contee, &c. ed…
1Opinion of the Court
-Johnson, J.
delivered the opinion of the court. The declaration in this case is in the usual form, containing amongst others, a count on an account, and an insimul computassent„ The questions which arose were as to (he form of the action, and as to the merits of the subject in controversy.
The facts, as the plaintiff offered evidence to prove, are that T. and A. Contee were indebted to J. C. and //. All-stan, under the firm of Alistan and Brothers. The partnership of Alistan and Brothers was dissolved on the 31st December 1803, and the next day J. and C. Alistan commenced business, and took…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Stewart v. RogersCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1862
- De Barry v. Withers & PetersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1863