Fisher v. Rieman
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore city. Assumpsit brought by the appellees against the appellant, to recover back money paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant, for a promissory note. The defendant was a public bill and note broker, and sold the note in question to the plaintiffs. without disclosing the name of his principal.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore city. Assumpsit brought by the appellees against the appellant, to recover back money paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant, for a promissory note. The defendant was a public bill and note broker, and sold the note in question to the plaintiffs. without disclosing the name of his principal. The names of (he maker and one of the endorsers on the note proved to be forged, but this fact was not known by (he defendant at the time of the sale. The signature of the other endorser was genuine. The. declaration contained the common money counts. Plea, non…
1Opinion of the Court
.Eccleston, J.,
delivered the opinion of this court.
This is an action of assumpsit, in which the nar contains the four common money counts only. The plea is nan assumpsit.
At the trial, the plaintiffs gave in evidence a promissory note with the protest thereof attached. The following is a copy of the note:
“.$681. Baltimore, Feb’y 1st, 1854.
Eleven months after date, I promise to pay to the order of *508J. F. Kridler six hundred and eighty-one TW dollars, value received. Edwd. Dunn.”
On said note ¡lie following names appear as endorsers:
“Jacob F. Kridler, •
Henry Shirk,
Jacob F. Kridler.”
Black, a…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ellis v. WildMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
3Cited by5 opinions
- Meyer v. RichardsSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Sebastian May Co. v. CoddCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1893
- Meyer v. RichardsSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Seemuller v. FuchsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1885
- Strauss v. HenseyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1895