Stimmel v. Underwood
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from Frederick County Court. This was an action of Assumpsit, commenced on the 1st August, 1826, by th e appellee, against the appellant, on a promissory note payable at four months from the 25th of September, .1815, of which the appellant was the maker, .endorsed by one Philip Buzzard to J. R. Buzzard, and by him to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Frederick County Court. This was an action of Assumpsit, commenced on the 1st August, 1826, by th e appellee, against the appellant, on a promissory note payable at four months from the 25th of September, .1815, of which the appellant was the maker, .endorsed by one Philip Buzzard to J. R. Buzzard, and by him to the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded nonassumpsit and limitations, to which there were issues. 1. At the trial the plaintiff produced the note with the endorsements thereon, and offered to prove the execution of the same and the endorsements, by John R. Buzzard, one of the…
1Opinion of the CourtArcher, J.
The question has been discussed, whether a witness’s belief of his interest in a cause, when in truth he has no interest; or whether his being under an honorary obligation to pay, if the person for whom he testifies fails in the action, will render him incompetent. Upon this subject there has certainly been much diversity of opinion ; but the current of decision in modern times, both in England and the United, States, has set against all objection to the admissibility of a witness, unless his interest be a legal interest. Notwithstanding the determination in 1 Strange, 127, and the views…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Reynolds v. Manning, Stimpson & Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1860
- Silberstein v. EpsteinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1924