Caton v. Shaw & Tiffany
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from Baltimm'e County Court. Action of assumpsit. The first count in the declaration stated, that on the 29th of July 1817, in consideration that the plaintiffs, (the appellees,) at the special instance and request of the defendant^, (the appellant,) would lend and advance to Mijah Fenn such sum of money as he should have occasion for, and require of the plaintiffs not exceeding $500, he the defendant undertook and promised the plaintiffs to stand security, and be…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Baltimm'e County Court. Action of assumpsit. The first count in the declaration stated, that on the 29th of July 1817, in consideration that the plaintiffs, (the appellees,) at the special instance and request of the defendant^, (the appellant,) would lend and advance to Mijah Fenn such sum of money as he should have occasion for, and require of the plaintiffs not exceeding $500, he the defendant undertook and promised the plaintiffs to stand security, and be accountable to them for such sum of money as they should lend and advance to Fenn. The plaintiffs averred that they,…
1Opinion of the CourtArcher, J.
It is contended, that the court below should, upon the first bill of exceptions, have directed the jury that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover, because the guaranty was not accepted by the plaintiffs below; but that the sum advanced must have been loaned solely upon the responsibility of .Fenn, in whose favour the guaranty' was given. This must depend upon the fact whether there beany evidence from which the jury might have been justified in drawing the inference that the guaranty was accepted. If there he any', the court below were right in refusing the direction, as it is the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Mitchell v. McClearyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1875
- Boyd v. SnyderCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1878
- Donnelly v. NewboldCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1901