Crenshaw v. Slye
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Circuit Court for St. Mary’s County. The nature of the case is stated in the opinion of the Court. First Exception.—The defendant offered certain testimony, to the admissibility of which, at the time of the offer of the same, • the plaintiff objected, hut the Court (Brent, C. J. and Ford, J.) overruled the objection, and permitted such testimony to go to the jury; the plaintiff excepted.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court for St. Mary’s County. The nature of the case is stated in the opinion of the Court. First Exception.—The defendant offered certain testimony, to the admissibility of which, at the time of the offer of the same, • the plaintiff objected, hut the Court (Brent, C. J. and Ford, J.) overruled the objection, and permitted such testimony to go to the jury; the plaintiff excepted. Second Exception.—The defendant offered the following prayer: If the jury find from the evidence in this case, that the defendant received no benefit from the fertilizer, for which the note…
1Opinion of the CourtIrving, J.
The suit, in which this appeal was taken, was instituted upon a promissory note of the appellee’ to the appellants, for one hundred and twenty-three dollars. The narr. contained the ordinary money counts, with a special count setting out the promissory note. The appellee pleaded non assumpsit, and under the general issue proved that the note was given for two and one-half tons of a fertilizer called “ Eureka,” of which the plaintiffs were manufacturers, and offered evidence tending to prove certain representations at the time of the sale, respecting the value of the fertilizer, which were…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Reese & Co. v. BatesSupreme Court of Virginia · 1897
- Herron & Holland v. Dibrell Bros.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1891
- Greer v. WhalenCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1915
- Potomac Steamboat Co. v. Harlan & Hollingsworth Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1887