Brown v. Warram
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Error to Queen Anne’s County Court. This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note. The defendant (now defendant in error,) pleaded'non assumpsit, and issue was joined.
Read the full summary
Error to Queen Anne’s County Court. This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note. The defendant (now defendant in error,) pleaded'non assumpsit, and issue was joined. At the trial the plaintiff, (now plaintiff in error,) produced in evidence the following promissory note, to wit: etBaltimore, May 30th, 1810. For value received, we promise to pay Hiram Brown, or to his heirs or assigns, the sum of one hundred and eighty dollars, on or before the 1st day of June 1811, with legal interest from the above date. Witness Lewis Bruen. S, Wihner.” William Warrant.. And produced the subscribing…
1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.
The defendant could not, to defeat the action on the general issue, rely on the note being joint, but if he intended to avail himself of that circumstance he ought to have pleaded it in abatement. For the note being joint did not prove that the defendant had not assumed, and assumed, although another also assumed;-there was no variance of course between the allegata and probata.
JUSGMENT REVERSE», &üj
2Cited by5 opinions
- Merrick v. Trustees of the BankCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1849
- Sittig v. BirkestackCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1873
- Cruzen v. McKaigCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1882
- Rosenthal v. HeftCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1930
- Ziele v. Executors of CampbellNew York Supreme Court · 1801