Greenbury B. Wilson & Co. v. Keedy
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Cross-appeals from Baltimore county court. This was an action of assumpsit instituted by the appellant, Keedy, against the appellee, Wilson, trading under the style of G. B. Wilson & Co. The declaration contains the general indebitatus assumpsit counts, the common money counts, and a count upon an account stated. The plea was non assumpsit, upon which issue was joined.
Read the full summary
Cross-appeals from Baltimore county court. This was an action of assumpsit instituted by the appellant, Keedy, against the appellee, Wilson, trading under the style of G. B. Wilson & Co. The declaration contains the general indebitatus assumpsit counts, the common money counts, and a count upon an account stated. The plea was non assumpsit, upon which issue was joined. It was agreed that a set off mentioned below, might be offered in bar, as though formally pleaded, but the plaintiff, by this agreement, did not admit the truth of the plea, or the sufficiency of it, if proven. At the trial,…
1Opinion of the CourtSpence, J.
The only question to which our attention has been invited, and our judgment asked, in this case, arises on the decision of the county court on the plaintiff’s first prayer. The decision of the Court of Appeals, at the present term, in the case of Milburn vs. Guyther, ante 92, is conclusive in this, for it decides “that a joint debt cannot be set off against a separate one, nor a separate debt against a joint demand.” The judgment is affirmed.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hochstadler Bros. v. SamTexas Supreme Court · 1889
- Cohen v. KarpCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1923
- Tyrrell v. TyrrellCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1880