Thomas v. Catheral
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from Baltimore County Court. This was an action of Assumpsit. The declaration contained three counts, upon a guaranty by Catheral, the appellee, upon the note set out in the evidence, in conformity with the endorsement thereon. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit, and issue was joined. 1. The plaintiff, at the trial, proved the following promissory note :—•“ $ 110. Twelve months after dato I promise to pay Mary Thomas, one hundred and ten dollars, for value received.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Baltimore County Court. This was an action of Assumpsit. The declaration contained three counts, upon a guaranty by Catheral, the appellee, upon the note set out in the evidence, in conformity with the endorsement thereon. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit, and issue was joined. 1. The plaintiff, at the trial, proved the following promissory note :—•“ $ 110. Twelve months after dato I promise to pay Mary Thomas, one hundred and ten dollars, for value received. Baltimore, October 22d, 1820. John Goi'ham.” He also proved the following endorsement, and signature on the back…
1Opinion of the Court
Buchanan, Ch. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
Without a sufficient release it is superfluous to say, that Sarah Gorham, the wife of the maker of the note, was not a competent witness; and the paper stated to have been executed to Gorham as a release, and delivered to his wife, upon which she was admitted as a witness, not appearing in the record, we have nothing before us to show, that the objection to her competency was removed, and are therefore constrained to say, that for any thing appearing in the case, her testimony should not have been received.
' As to tbe second exception,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Clemens v. Mayor of BaltimoreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1860
- Bryan v. Coursey ex rel. De CourseyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1852