Smith v. Stone & Mullikin
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from Baltimore County Court. Assumpsit by the appellant William Smith, as surviving partner of James 8. Lane, and John Smith, trading under the firm of James S. Lane and Smiths, against the appellees, trading under the firm of James Stone, Jr. Sf Co., on a promissory note, the execution of which, by the defendants was admitted, dated 20th December, 1831, at six months, for $¡193 75. Issue was joined upon the plea of non assumpsit. 1. At the trial, the defendants…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Baltimore County Court. Assumpsit by the appellant William Smith, as surviving partner of James 8. Lane, and John Smith, trading under the firm of James S. Lane and Smiths, against the appellees, trading under the firm of James Stone, Jr. Sf Co., on a promissory note, the execution of which, by the defendants was admitted, dated 20th December, 1831, at six months, for $¡193 75. Issue was joined upon the plea of non assumpsit. 1. At the trial, the defendants having read to the jury a deed, dated 27th July, 1822, executed by them, to trustees, of all their partnership property, and…
1Opinion of the CourtStephen, J.
This action of assumpsit was brought upon a promissory note, executed by Stone and Mullikin, to Lane and Smith, in the course of the trial of which, two bills of exception were taken to the opinion's of the court below. The defendants to support the issue of non assumpsit by them pleaded, gave in evidence to the jury, a deed of trust executed by them, by which they conveyed certain real estate and all their partnership property of every description, to certain trustees for the benefit of such of their creditors* as should within a limited tizne, give them a final discharge from the payment of…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Crenshaw v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Herzog v. SawyerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1884
- Hall v. HallCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1925
- Cheveront v. TextorCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1880