Baltimore Coal Tar & Manufacturing Co. v. Fletcher
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. Exception. — At the trial the plaintiffs offered the following prayer: That there is no evidence in this case, legally sufficient to sustain the defendant’s pleas of set-off, as to the several items of §600.00, $400.00 and $358.10, or either of them.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. Exception. — At the trial the plaintiffs offered the following prayer: That there is no evidence in this case, legally sufficient to sustain the defendant’s pleas of set-off, as to the several items of §600.00, $400.00 and $358.10, or either of them. And the defendant offered the two following prayers: 1. If the jury shall find from the evidence, that William Fletcher, senior, furnished the plaintiff, Murdock, the money with which he obtained the check for $2500, which he has testified he sent to…
1Opinion of the CourtAlvey, C. J.
The plaintiffs in this case are William Eletchor, junior, and William C. Murdock, trading under the partnership name of Fletcher and Murdock; and the action is for money had and received by the defendant to the use of the plaintiffs, and for money found to be due from the defendant to the plaintiffs on accounts stated between them. There was a bill of particulars filed, showing the nature and amount of the claim. The defendant pleaded, never indebted as alleged, and set-off.
The questions presented by this appeal are raised by an instruction granted at the instance of the plaintiffs, to the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ford v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1858
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hambleton v. RhindCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1897
- Anderson v. StewartCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1908
- Noel Construction Co. v. Atlas Portland Cement Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1906