Chandler v. State
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from Baltimore county court. This was an ac-J • • v ' tion °f assumpsit, instituted by the appellant, (the plaintiff 'n the court below,) against the state, The. decla-ation contained three counts—The first for sundry matters properly chargeable in account; the second for work and labour, &c. and the third a general indebitatus assumpsit for a certain sum of money, without setting out the canse, or consideration upon which the debt accrued.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Baltimore county court. This was an ac-J • • v ' tion °f assumpsit, instituted by the appellant, (the plaintiff 'n the court below,) against the state, The. decla-ation contained three counts—The first for sundry matters properly chargeable in account; the second for work and labour, &c. and the third a general indebitatus assumpsit for a certain sum of money, without setting out the canse, or consideration upon which the debt accrued. To the first and second counts the general issue was pleaded; and to the third count there was a special demurrer, and the causes of demurrer…
1Opinion of the Court
Buchanan; J.
delivered the opinion of the cotírt. Thiá case comes before us on an appeal from’the judgment of the county court of Baltimore, iñ a suit instituted by the áppellant against th'e State of Maryland, under the act of 1786, ch. S3.
The two counts relied upon hi the declaration are, thd first on a general indebitatus assumpsit for sundry matters properly chargeable in accoürit; and the second for work ánd labour done, and materials found. And on an attentive examination of the evidence produced at the trial, and set out in the bill of exceptions, we ar.e constrained to say, that…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Maught v. GetzendannerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1886