Franklin & Armfield v. Long
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from Charles county court. Jissumpsit by the appellants against the appellee instituted on the 22d of July, 1833, for money had and received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Charles county court. Jissumpsit by the appellants against the appellee instituted on the 22d of July, 1833, for money had and received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiffs. Issue was joined upon the plea of non assumpsit. 1. At the trial the plaintiffs proved to the jury by John Ware, a competent witness, that he, as agent of the plaintiffs, in the latter part of June, 1833, agreed to purchase from the defendant, a negro man, for the sum of $460, the defendant agreeing on the payment of the purchase money, to deliver the negro to the said agent, and that on the 5th of…
1Opinion of the Court
Buchanan, Ch. Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court
This suit was instituted to recover back the sum of $460 which had been paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant, on a contract for the sale of a negro man, and comes up on a bill of exceptions to three several instructions given to the juiy by the court, before which the cause was tried.
It appears from the statement in the bill of exceptions, of the evidence offered by the plaintiffs at the trial, that in June, 1833, an agent of the plaintiffs, verbally agreed on their behalf to purchase from the defendant a negro man at the price of $460,…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Brewer v. HerbertCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1869
- White Automobile Co. v. DorseyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1913
- Bladen v. WellsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1869
- Groff v. HanselCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1870
- Walter v. Victor G. Bloede Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1901
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.