Manning, Stimpson & Co. v. Hays
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore city. Assumpsit by the appellee, as holder, against the appellants, as endorsers of the note, stated in the opinion of this court. Plea non-assumpsit. Exception.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore city. Assumpsit by the appellee, as holder, against the appellants, as endorsers of the note, stated in the opinion of this court. Plea non-assumpsit. Exception. The plaintiff offered the protest of the note, that part of it which refers to the notice of protest being as follows : “And on the same day I addressed written notices to the endorsers of said promissory note, informing them that it had not been paid, and that they would be held responsible for the payment thereof,” and then proved the facts stated in the opinion of this court; the maker,…
1Opinion of the CourtLe Grand, C. J.
This action was instituted against the appellants to recover the amount of a promissory note', dated the 23rd May 1850, at six months, for three thousand dollars, drawn and signed by the appellant Samuel Manning, in favor of “Manning, Stimpson & Co.,” and endorsed by them in the handwriting of the said Samuel Manning, and also endorsed by Joseph C. Manning. The appellee is the holder of the note.
The plaintiff below proved the handwriting of Samuel Manning, and the co-partnership of the appellants, under the style and name of Manning, Stimpson and MacTavish. The note was protested for…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Brown v. DuncansonGeneral Court of Virginia · 1799
- Thurston v. LloydCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1853
3Cited by4 opinions
- Calvert Bank v. J. Katz & Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1905
- Hopkins v. BoydCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1857
- Armstrong v. ThrustonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1857
- Spillane v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceCivil Court of the City of New York · 1970