Spies v. Rosenstock
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City (Ritchie, J.) The appellant, as payee of a promissory note for $750, sued the maker, Rosenstock, and S. J. Stargardtner as endorser. The trial Court instructed the jury that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, because the note sued on was given in part execution of a contract which was contrary to public policy and therefore void.
1Opinion of the CourtFowler, J.
The plaintiff sued the defendant to recover on a promissory note' for the sum of seven hundred and fifty dollars. The defendant pleaded non-assumpsit.
It appears from the testimony of the plaintiff that he and the defendant “ were copartners as book-makers for the races to be run at the two tracks in Virginia in the year 1895, and that the defendant not having the money to put into the business, the plaintiff agreed to furnish the capital of the same to .the amount of fifteen hundred dollars, and the defendant gave him the note sued on for his one-half of the capital of said business; that the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- People v. WeithoffMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
- Ingersoll v. MartinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1882
- Emerson v. Urie TownsendCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1890
- James v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1885
- Gough v. PrattCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1856
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- City of Portland v. DuntleyOregon Supreme Court · 1949
- Clark v. Harford Agricultural & Breeders' Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1912
- Hollander v. LubowCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1976
- State v. MoranoSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1946
- Allen v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1940
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.