Lewis ex rel. Ringgold's Adm'r v. Hoblitzell's Admr's
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Cross Appeals from Alleghany county court. This was an action of Assumpsit, instituted on the 25th of August, 1829, by the appellant in the first case, against Hohlitzell in his life-time, to charge him as the assignor of two bonds for $1000 each, payable respectively on the 1st of April, 1824, and 1825. Issues were joined upon the pleas of non assumpsit and limitations; and a verdict taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court upon the following case…
Read the full summary
Cross Appeals from Alleghany county court. This was an action of Assumpsit, instituted on the 25th of August, 1829, by the appellant in the first case, against Hohlitzell in his life-time, to charge him as the assignor of two bonds for $1000 each, payable respectively on the 1st of April, 1824, and 1825. Issues were joined upon the pleas of non assumpsit and limitations; and a verdict taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court upon the following case stated. “On the 30th of December, 1818, Robert G. Russell purchased a house and lot of ground in Bedford, Pennsylvania, from…
1Opinion of the CourtChambers, J.
It is clear that the assignment of Hoblitzell to Lewis, by the express terms of which, he made himself responsible for the ultimate payment of the debt assigned, would subject Hoblitzell to an action at the suit of Lewis, in the event of Lewis’ diligent prosecution against those who stood before Hoblitzell in the order of liability, or by showing an excuse for, or in other words, the inutility of such prosecution.
We think that Ringgold, being in point of fact the equitable assignee of Lewis, the suit might well be instituted in the name of Lewis for his use. Much argument has been urged on…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Van Brunt v. PikeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1846