Penniman v. Cole
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court. Reference may also be bad to the case of Penniman vs. Loney, 40-Md., 475, involving tbe same subject-matter.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court. Reference may also be bad to the case of Penniman vs. Loney, 40-Md., 475, involving tbe same subject-matter. In addition to tbe grounds stated in the opinion of this Court, tbe Court below, (Pinkney, J.,) referred, in dismissing the petition of the appellant, to tbe fact that the account of October, 1872, distributing the fund at first reserved, had been finally ratified without objection on bis part.
1Opinion of the CourtMiller, J.
The appellant’s claim is now presented in an entirely new phase. On former occasions he has unsuccessfully insisted, first, that these debts formed part of the assets of the new firm and therefore passed to him by his purchase and the receiver’s deed, and secondly, he claimed the right to retain what he had collected of them as a set-off against an alleged indebtedness of the old to the new firm. He now claims an abatement of $2500 from the purchase money upon the ground' that the receiver, prior to and at the time of his purchase, represented to him that these old debts to the estimated…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Marbury v. StonestreetCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1851
- Kent v. CarcaudCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1861
- Price v. Merchants' BankCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1868
3Cited by2 opinions
- Pfeaff v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1879
- Trayhern v. National Mechanics' BankCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1882