Smith v. Crichton
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Baltimore City Court. Tins was an action of assumpsit instituted by the appellee to recover the balance of a loan made to the appellant. The pleas were never indebted, never promised, and set-off1 — the character of the last plea will be found sufficiently disclosed in the second prayer of the appellant. Pxeeption.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Baltimore City Court. Tins was an action of assumpsit instituted by the appellee to recover the balance of a loan made to the appellant. The pleas were never indebted, never promised, and set-off1 — the character of the last plea will be found sufficiently disclosed in the second prayer of the appellant. Pxeeption. The defendant offered the following prayers: 1st. That if the jury shall believe from the evidence, that at the time the alleged cause of action accrued, the plaintiff and his son, Malcolm Crichton, were co-partners, and that said cause of action was a partnership…
1Opinion of the CourtStewart, J.
Exceptions have been taken by the appellant in this case to the ruling of the Court below, in the refusal to grant his three several prayers, and to the verbal instructions given, including the form, as well as the substance of them.
The first prayer involves the question whether the plaintiff, having sued the defendant upon a cause of action alleged to be due alone to the plaintiff, can recover under the pleadings, if, upon proof, it appears to have been a claim due the partnership, of which the plaintiff was a member; and whether the defendant can avail himself of such defence unless by plea…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Wallis v. DilleyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1854
- Hoffar v. DementCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1847
- Armstrong v. RobinsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1833
- Mitchell v. DallCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1828
- Oelrichs v. ArtzCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1864
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Scarlett Harbor Associates Ltd. PartnershipCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1996
- Feinglos v. WeinerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1942
- Rosenkovitz v. United Railways & Electric Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1908
- Buechner v. GoodmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1938