Conolly v. Kettlewell & Wilson
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from Baltimore County Court. This was an action of Assumpsit, brought by the appellees against the appellant, on the 16th May 1840, for goods sold and delivered. The defendant pleaded non-assumpsit and limitations, on which issues were joined. 1st Exception.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Baltimore County Court. This was an action of Assumpsit, brought by the appellees against the appellant, on the 16th May 1840, for goods sold and delivered. The defendant pleaded non-assumpsit and limitations, on which issues were joined. 1st Exception. The plaintiff, to support the issue on his part, proved by John Higinbothom, that he was the clerk of the plaintiff in 1836 and 1837, and at the time when the articles charged in the account of the plaintiff, as following, were sold and delivered. “Mr. James Sterling, secured by John F. Conolly, Bought of Kettlewell, Wilson £f…
1Opinion of the CourtStephen, J.
We think the court were clearly right, in refusing to grant the defendant’s first prayer, made in this case. It was an action founded upon a collateral promise to pay the debt of another person, to whom goods were delivered by the plaintiffs. The prayer to the court was to instruct the jury, that the promise of the defendant to see the plaintiffs paid, if the principal debtor did not pay, not being in writing, was void by the statute of frauds, and the plaintiff, therefore, could not recover. It is the province of the jury to decide all questions of fact, of which evidence legally sufficient…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Ellicott v. TurnerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1853
- Cropper v. PittmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1859
- Meiners v. MunsonIndiana Supreme Court · 1876
- Myer v. GrafflinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1869
- Glenn v. RogersCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1852
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.