Hysinger v. T. & P. Baltzell
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from Washington County Court.—Assumpsit by tbe appellees, Thomas and Philip Baltzell, against the appellant, Christian Hysinger, instituted November 13th, 1826, for goods, wares and merchandize, sold and delivered by the appellees, to the appellant and John Strealey. Non Assumpsit and Limitations were pleaded.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Washington County Court.—Assumpsit by tbe appellees, Thomas and Philip Baltzell, against the appellant, Christian Hysinger, instituted November 13th, 1826, for goods, wares and merchandize, sold and delivered by the appellees, to the appellant and John Strealey. Non Assumpsit and Limitations were pleaded. A verdict was taken by consent, for the plaintiffs, subject to the opinion of the court, upon the following statement of facts—viz: “ That at the time when the goods in the declaration mentioned were sold and delivered, the plaintiffs were, and still are merchants, residing in…
1Opinion of the CourtMartin, J.
This was an action of assumpsit instituted to recover the value of certain goods, wares and merchandizes, sold and delivered by the plaintiffs, to the defendant and a certain John Stredley. To the declaration filed in this cause, the defendant pleaded non assumpsit, and non assumpsit infra tres annos. The record contains no replication to these pleas, although the jury were sworn to try the issues between the parties. This omission, we are induced to believe, proceeded from an agreement, that a mere formal verdict should be taken by consent, subject to the opinion of *161the court upon a case…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Willard v. WoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Mason, Chapin & Co. v. Union Mills Paper Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1895
- Van Brunt v. PikeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1846
- Tyler v. Mutual District Messenger Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1900
- White v. WhiteHigh Court of Chancery of Maryland · 1847