Bullock v. Campbell
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from Baltimore county court. This was an action of assumpsit, instituted by the appellant, the plaintiff below, against the appellee. The nar contained the common money counts. The pleas were nonassumpsit and limitations. A verdict was taken by consent in favor of the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court on a case- stated.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Baltimore county court. This was an action of assumpsit, instituted by the appellant, the plaintiff below, against the appellee. The nar contained the common money counts. The pleas were nonassumpsit and limitations. A verdict was taken by consent in favor of the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court on a case- stated. By this statement, it appears that the plaintiff endorsed a note for the defendant, which matured 24th of July, 1840, for $1462.45; which defendant passed to Ogden Waddingion f Co. The note was unpaid at maturity, and was duly protested and notice given to…
1Opinion of the Court
Magruder, J.,
delivered t,he opinion of this court.
This appeal comes from Baltimore county court. The plaintiff below, (who is the plaintiff here,) instituted this suit 18th May, 1846, to recover so much money paid for, and at the instance of the defendant. This money was paid by the plaintiff to the holder of a promissory note, drawn by the defendant, payable to the plaintiff, and by him endorsed. Upon this note the holder instituted a suit against the plaintiff, recovered a judgment, which the plaintiff here paid in pari, and for the amount paid by him, this action was instituted. It was…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Blanchard v. . BlanchardNew York Court of Appeals · 1911
- Bushnell v. BushnellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1890
- Hooper v. HooperCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1895
- Nelson v. CloseCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1925
- Shriver v. CaplesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1926