Guy v. Tams
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from Baltimore County Court. This was an action of assumpsit, commenced on the 6th December, 1843, by the appellee against the appellant. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit and limitations. After verdict for the plaintiff, there was a motion for a new trial, which the County Court overruled.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Baltimore County Court. This was an action of assumpsit, commenced on the 6th December, 1843, by the appellee against the appellant. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit and limitations. After verdict for the plaintiff, there was a motion for a new trial, which the County Court overruled. The plaintiff offered in evidence the following notes, to wit: “ Phila., July 5th, 1839. “$112 40.—Sixty days after date, I promise to pay Sampson Tams, or order, $112 40, value received, without default; payable at the counting-house of Mr. M. Newkirk, Market Street. John Guy.” “ Phila., July…
1Opinion of the CourtDorsey, J.
The defendant’s first prayer is as follows:- .
“ That if the jury shall believe, that at the interview between. Tams' and Guy, Tams said to Guy, I never troubled you for the payment of what you owed me; and Guy said he was aware of it, and if he was allowed a little time, he would pay all his debts, and that he, Guy, would certainly do his best for Mr. Tams; that such is not a new assumption to take the case out of the statute of limitations.”
This prayer raises no question as to the conformity of the proof to the pleadings in the case; it impliedly assumes the correctness of the pleadings; and…
2Cited by14 opinions
- O'HARA v. KovensCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1986
- Hoover v. WilliamsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1964
- W., B. A. Elec. R.R. Co. v. MossCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1917
- Penley v. WaterhouseSupreme Court of Iowa · 1856
- Shipley v. ShillingCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1887
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.