Hudson v. Goodwin
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from Harford county court. It was an action of assumpsit brought by the appellee, as indorsee of a proxnissory note, against the appellant, as maker.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Harford county court. It was an action of assumpsit brought by the appellee, as indorsee of a proxnissory note, against the appellant, as maker. The declaration contained two counts, one upon the note, stating • ' _ *' it to have been made by the appellant on the 18th of March J 1813, and that he thereby, 9,0 days after date, promised to pay John E. Dorsey, or order, 8760, for value received; that Dorsey endorsed it -to William MiMechen, who endorsed it to the appellee. The other count was for money had and received. The general issue was pleaded; and at the trial the plaintiff…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Buchanan, J.
There is nothing in the objection, that the name of JohnEdwarcl Dorsey is not sufficiently set out. But the endorsement on the note, on which the suit was brought, appears to be in blank; and though the plaintiff might have "filled it up at any time before verdict, yet not having done so, he is not entitled to recover. There is nor distinction between this and the case of Ringgold vs. Tyson, decided by this court at December term, 1810, and we see nothing to shake the authority of that case.
JUDGMENT REVERSED,
2Cited by1 opinion
- Whiteford v. BurckmyerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1843