Gwynn v. Lee
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Court of Chancery. • The facts of (his case are fully stated in the following opinion of the chancellor, (Johnson,) accompanying his order dissolving the injunction obtained by the appellants, the complainants below.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Court of Chancery. • The facts of (his case are fully stated in the following opinion of the chancellor, (Johnson,) accompanying his order dissolving the injunction obtained by the appellants, the complainants below. “ This cause, though not very important with reference to the amount ipvolved in its decision, is yet not destitute of interest to the commercial community. jf It appears, that some time in the month of April, 1848, the complainants, trading under the firm of Gwynn and Company, placed in the hands of George Baughman, of the firm of Baughman, Nicholson and Cannon,…
1Opinion of the CourtMagruder, J.
We agree with the chancellor that the injunction which the complainants had obtained in this case, oughtnottobe continued.
It is not to be denied that George Baughman, according to the statement in the bill of complaint, practiced a fraud upon the complainants; but we are not authorised to believe, that of such fraud the defendant,- Lee, had notice at the time that the note of the complainants was received by him.
The note in controversy, we must take it for granted, was placed in the hands of the defendant Lee, as a security for the repayment of money borrowed at the time, of the latter, and…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Powell v. HopkinsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1873