Pawson's Adm'rs v. Donnell
Court of Appeals of Maryland
These- were Cross Appeals from Baltimore County Court, from a; judgment rendered in an action of Assumpsit in favour @£ the plaintiffs, (the appellants in the first and appellee in the second of these appeals) against the defendant (the appellee in the first and appellant in the second of these appeals.) The declaration contained two counts—One for work and labour, &c. goods, &c. sold and delivered, money lent, and for money had and received; and the other on an insimul…
Read the full summary
These- were Cross Appeals from Baltimore County Court, from a; judgment rendered in an action of Assumpsit in favour @£ the plaintiffs, (the appellants in the first and appellee in the second of these appeals) against the defendant (the appellee in the first and appellant in the second of these appeals.) The declaration contained two counts—One for work and labour, &c. goods, &c. sold and delivered, money lent, and for money had and received; and the other on an insimul computassent, between the defendant and the plaintiff’s intestate. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit, and issue was…
1Opinion of the Court
Dorsey J.
at this term delivered the opinion of the Court. Of the refusal of the Court to grant the instruction prayed for, which forms the ground’ of appeal on the appellant’s first bill of exceptions, we entirely approve. Had the instruction been given, it would have been a palpable invasion of the unquestionable and exclusive right of the jury: that of deciding on facts, of which contradictory testimony is adduced. The appellees “had offered in evidence, that it was the usage among ship owners and masters, not to charge freight where the ship was in ballast, for any articles shipped by the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Citizens Bank v. John A. Howell & Bros.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1855