Mulliken v. Boyce
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from Prince George’s County Court. This was an action oí Assumpsit, brought on the 2nd March 1840, by the appellee against the appellant, to recover the amount of a promissory note of the defendant for $350, dated-28th September 1837, payable to the appellee or order. The declaration also contained the common money counts. The defendant pleaded non-assumpsit, and the jury found a verdict against him for $445.37, on which judgment was rendered. 1st Exception.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Prince George’s County Court. This was an action oí Assumpsit, brought on the 2nd March 1840, by the appellee against the appellant, to recover the amount of a promissory note of the defendant for $350, dated-28th September 1837, payable to the appellee or order. The declaration also contained the common money counts. The defendant pleaded non-assumpsit, and the jury found a verdict against him for $445.37, on which judgment was rendered. 1st Exception. At the trial of this causp, the plaintiff to support the issue on his part joined, offered in evidence to the jury the following…
1Opinion of the CourtArcher, J.
By the contract between the parties, the representation of the plaintiff was gratified by the adduction of the breedei’s certificate that the mare was thorough bred. The prayer, therefore, of the defendant, which called upon the court to say that the plaintiff .could not .recover unless the jury believed the mare was thorough bred, could not be gratified; the plaintiff being entitled to recover the full amount of the note, if the jury should believe the plaintiff had produced the breeder’s certificate, according to the terms of the contract. The prayer was wrong in another respect; for had…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Glenn v. RogersCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1852