Thurston v. Lloyd
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from Baltimore county court. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the appellee against the appellant, upon a promissory note, dated the 12th of July 1847, for $200, at sixty days, payable to the appellee, or order, and purporting to be signed by “Fogg and Thurs-ton.” The declaration contained a count upon the note and the common money counts. Exception.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Baltimore county court. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the appellee against the appellant, upon a promissory note, dated the 12th of July 1847, for $200, at sixty days, payable to the appellee, or order, and purporting to be signed by “Fogg and Thurs-ton.” The declaration contained a count upon the note and the common money counts. Exception. The plaintiff offered the note, and proved that the signature of Fogg and Thurston thereto was in the handwriting of Fogg, formerly a partner in the late firm of Fogg and Thurston, who kept the Fountain Inn. That wilnes^» who was…
1Opinion of the CourtEccleston, J.
The first instruction given by the court below, at the instance of the plaintiff is, “ that there is no evidence that the note in controversy was ante-dated, or that it was given for a private debt of either member of the firm, or for any purpose other than a partnership transaction; and, therefore, the plaintiff had a right to recover, if the jury believed from the evidence that the note was signed in the partnership name, by either of the partners, during the existence of the partnership.”
After a full and minute examination of the testimony, we *288do not perceive any evidence legally tending…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Whitaker v. BrownCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1836
- President of the Farmers Bank v. DuvallCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1835
3Cited by1 opinion
- Manning, Stimpson & Co. v. HaysCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1854