Barger v. Collins
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from Baltimore County Court. FLssumpsit. 1, For work and labour, and materials found. 2. Quantum meruit for work and labour, and for materials found, &c. 3. For money laid out and expended, lent and advanced. And 4. An insimul compulassent, &c. The defendant, (now appellee,) pleaded non assumpsit, and issue was joined.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Baltimore County Court. FLssumpsit. 1, For work and labour, and materials found. 2. Quantum meruit for work and labour, and for materials found, &c. 3. For money laid out and expended, lent and advanced. And 4. An insimul compulassent, &c. The defendant, (now appellee,) pleaded non assumpsit, and issue was joined. The defendant also gave notice of a set off for money lent and advanced to, and paid, laid out and expended for, the plaintiffs’ testator in his lifetime, &c. At the trial the plaintiffs, (the appellants,) offered in evidence the following paper, to show that the…
1Opinion of the CourtDorsey, J.
The plaintiffs having produced in evidence the written settlement, made between Walter F. Athey and James W. Collins, this Gourt think it was competent for the defendant to show, that the items in the settlement were partnership claims due by Collins to Athey and Barger, and to Shoemaker and Athey, and that the testimony offered by the defendant is admissible for that purpose. An account stated is not conclusive upon the parties who made it, but may, by either of them, be contradicted, modified or, explained, by other testimony than is afforded by the settlement itself. The defendant is at…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Crocker v. WhitneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Stewart v. RogersCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1862
- De Barry v. Withers & PetersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1863