Volume 12 — Maryland Reports

The bill in this case, filed on the 9th of March 1857, by the appellee against the appellant, alleges, that the complainant became surety of Parsons, and on the 8th of October 1855, united with him in confessing a judgment in favor of the parties to whom the debt was due, to be released on payment of $245 in six months, and of $244.85 in twelve months, with interest on each sum from the date of the judgment; that on the 14th of January 1856, Parsons executed to the…

Assumpsit brought on the 15th of December 1854, by the appellants against-the appellee and Geo. H. Buckey, partners, trading under the firm of Culler & Buckey. The appellee was summoned and Buckey returned non est.

This was an action on the case brought by the appellee on the 3rd of May 1855, against the appellants, to recover damages for injury to certain goods which the plaintiff placed on board the defendants’ vessel, the schooner Isabel, to be transported from Baltimore to Port Tobacco, in Charles county. The declaration charges that the defendants were common earners, and undertook to transport and deliver the goods safely and securely.

The bill in this case was filed by the appellee, on the 2nd of April 1853, against the appellants, for the specific performance of an alleged contract of subscription for stock in the Farmers and Mechanics Bank of Carroll county, and for an account of the arrears of dividends thereon, and to compel Mathias to pay over the proceeds of a certain single bill to the bank, in payment of said stock, and the balance, if any, with interest, to the complainant.

Attachment on warrant issued out of the Superior Court of Baltimore city, on the 3rd of January 1854, at the instance of the appellants, citizens of Maryland, on a claim due them by E. Webb, Maxey óf Co., citizens of Kentucky, for $4847.96, and, on the 4th of January 1854, laid in the hands of T. J. Carson Co., as garnishees, who appeared to the writ and pleaded non assumpsit and nulla bona, upon which issues were joined. Exception.

This appeal is taken from an order of the court below, (Nelson, J'.,) overruling exceptions filed by the appellant to, and finally ratifying and confirming, the auditor’s report, distributing the proceeds of certain mortgaged property sold under a decree of said court, by Eichelberger, as trustee. The facts of the case are fully stated in the opinion of this court.

Ejectment brought on the 24th of July 1852, by the appellants, heirs at law of Clement Brown, deceased, against the appellee, for the recovery of certain real estate, of which said Brown died seized. Plea, non cut.

This was an application, made by the appellant, for a rule upon the appellee to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, commanding him, as State Lottery Commissioner, to issue his draft on the Lottery Contractor for payment of a balance of $546.29, on the semi-annual instalments, due the petitioner, under a certain decree of Baltimore County Court.

This was an action brought by the appellee against the appellant, to recover damages for an alleged trespass committed by the defendant, in entering into, and taking and removing from the plaintiff’s dwelling-house, in Hagerstown, a large quantity of furniture, and other articles of personal property, particularly described in the declaration. Pleas, not guilty and license. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion of this court.

Attachment on warrant issued on the 13th of November 1854, at the instance of the appellee, a citizen of Maryland, to affect the goods and chattels, rights and credits of Nicholas Leister, a non-resident debtor, and, on the next day, laid in the hands of the appellant, as garnishee, who appeared and pleaded nulla bona, upon which the case was tried.

This appeal was taken by the owners from an order of the court below, (Price, J.,) in reference to íhé valuation of a negro slave, convicted of a larceny. All the proceedings and facts in the case are fully stated in the opinion of this court.

This appeal was taken from an order of the court below, (Nelson, J.,) dismissing two petitions filed by the appellant, for the purpose of having the decree which had been passed against him in the case opened, and his answer to the bill let in. The proceedings, and all the facts of the case, are fully stated in the opinion of this court.

Appnal from the Orphans Court of Frederick county. The appellee offered for probate in the court below, the will of Mrs. Catharine Michael, executed on the 26th of April 1856, whereby the testatrix, after some pecuniary legacies, devised and bequeathed “all the rest and residue of her estate, leal, personal and mixed, to her daughter Caroline M. Baker, her heirs and assigns forever,” and appointed the said Caroline her executrix.

This was ao action brought in the name of Lewis Lamborn, as the legal plaintifffor the use of Joshua Smith, against the appellant, upon a single bill for i$2G0, executed by the latter, and payable to said Lamborn. The declaration was in the usual form in debt, the name of Lamborn appearing as plaintiff therein, and lire use was entered upon the writ at the time the suit was commenced.

Gross-appeals from the Superior Court of Baltimore city. This suit was brought on the 5th of May 1854, in the name of the State for the use of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, against Lambert S. Norwood and bis sureties, upon Norwood’s official bond as clerk of the Court of Common Pleas, dated the 29th of November 1851. This bond, which was duly stamped, was given to the State in the penalty of The declaration did not assign breaches.

This action was brought on the 5th of May 1854, in the name of the State, for the use of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, against Lambert S. Norwood and his sureties, upon the official bond of Norwood, as clerk of the Court of Common Pleas, dated the 29th of June 1853. This bond was not stamped, and was given to the State in the penalty of $50,000, and conditioned in the same.manner as the bond in the preceding case.

These two appeals argued and decided together were taken by the appellants, the first, from the refusal of the court below on motion to strike out a judgment against Samuel Miller, and the second, from the fiat upon a scire facias sued out by the appellee to revive the same judgment. Is-A Appeal.

The plaintiff in error was indicted in Prince Georges county for larceny.

The plaintiff in error was indicted for a violation of the act of 1858, ch. 55, passed on the 17th of February 1858, entitled “An act to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors in the city of Annapolis, or within five miles thereof to minors and people of color.” The 1st section of this law enacts, “That from and after the first day of April next, it shall not be lawful for any person or persons, whether licensed to sell spirituous liquors or not, to sell, dispose of,…

The plaintiff in error was indicted under the same law as the party in the preceding case, the indictment charging that the traverser “within the corporate limits of the city of Annapolis, did give a certain quantity of spirituous or fermented liquor, to wit,” 1st. Because the evidence in this case clearly showed that the traverser went into a public bar-room, in the city of Annapolis, and invited two minors, under the age of twenty-one years, there present, to drink, which…

The bill in this case, filed by the appellants against the appellees, alleges that Mrs. Lee is the niece and one of the heirs at law and next of kin of Charcilla C. D. Gwings, who, as the complainants believe, died intestate, though a paper purporting to be her will, has been offered for probate by the defendant, Price, to the orphans court for Baltimore city, and having been caveated, is now the subject of inquiry as to its validity on issues sent from that court to the…

Trespass on the case, brought by the appeliee against the appellant, to recover the value of a horse belonging to the plaintiff, killed by the locomotive of the defendant. Plea non cid. Exception. The facts of the case, as given in evidence, are fully stated in the opinion of this court.

The record in this case shows that the defendant in error was indicted in Kent county, on the 12th of November 1856, under the name of Alfred Reed, for the murder of George Vansant. The indictment, containing two counts, commences: “State of Maryland, Kent county, set.

This appeal is taken from an order of the court below refusing to grant an injunction upon a bill filed by the appellants. The record shows that Henry H. Waring, by his will, executed on the 28th of May 1853, and admitted to probate,-on the 22nd of August 1854, devised and bequeathed as follows: “After my debts and funeral charges are paid, I devise and bequeath as follows: Item.

After the appellees in this case had filed their bill in the circuit court for an injunction, as stated in the preceding case, the executor, the present appellant, filed his petition in the orphans court, asking for the passage of an order directing a sale of the appellees for terms of j’ears or for life, for the payment of the debts of his testator.

This appeal was taken on the 6th of March 1855, from several orders of the court below, passed in the matter of the estate of Francis Earlougher, deceased, of which the appellant was executrix.

The bill in this case was filed on the 31st of January 1856, by the appellant against her husband1 the appellee.

This appeal was taken by the appellants, after answers filed, from an order of the court, below (Krebs, J.,) granting an injunction and appointing a receiver, upon a bill filed against, them by the appellees. The allegations of the bill are fully stated in the opinion of this court.

In this case the appellant was indicted and convicted in the court below for a violation of the then existing license laws, and appealed from the judgment against him. After the argument of the case in this court, the act of 1858, ch. 414, was passed, repealing the laws under which the indictment was framed.

This appeal is taken from an order of the court below, dismissing a petition filed by the appellant for a rule upon tbe Comptroller to show cause why a mandamus ought not to be issued, requiring him to issue his warrant upon tbe Treasurer for payment to the petitioner of the sum of $100, for rent of certain premises by her to the State, for the use of the State engine.

This was an action on the case brought on the 28th of March 1855, by the State against the appellees, as late commissioners of Charles county.

Assumpsit brought on the 10th of December 1853, by the appellee against the appellant, on a policy of insurance under» written by the defendants through its agents, Page and Banks, at Boston, on a cargo of lumber, to the amount of $3500, per Brig Orb, at and from Baltimore to Boston. Plea non assumpsit.

This appeal was taken from an order of the court below (Lee, J.,) continuing till final hearing, or further order, an injunction which had been granted upon a bill filed by the appellee against the appellants, and sustaining certain exceptions filed by the .complainant to the answer of the defendants, for insufficiency.

Appeals from the Circuit Court for Baltimore city. The two appeals in this case were laken, the one by the complainants, Hanson and wife, and Nelson and wife, and the other by two of the defendants, John T. Worthington and Samuel Worthington, from a proforma decree of the court below, (Krebs, J.,) dismissing the bill filed by tbe compiaiilants.

This appeal was taken from a decree of the court below (Krebs, J.) dismissing the bill in this case, filed by the appellant against the appellee, upon the ground, that John B. Gray was not “made a party to the cause, and an opportunity afforded him to be heard in reference to his alleged rights, interests and pretensions, referred to in the bill.” The bill alleges, that articles of association were subscribed by li.

Trespass q. c. f. for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s messuage or dwelling-house, and taking and carrying away his children, brought on the 10th of March 1851, by the appellee against the appellant and another, who died before trial.

This is an appeal from a pro-forma judgment of the court below (Lee, J.) The question presented by the statement of facts is, whether a ship duly registered in and sailing out of the port of Baltimore, owned by a bona fide and actual resident of Baltimore county, having his place of business, as a merchant, in Baltimore city, is liable to city taxation?

Apijeai, from the Circuit Court for Allegany county. Assumpsit brought on the 16th of December 1852, by the appellant against the appellee, to recover a subscription made by the defendant for eight shares of the stock of the plaintiff at $25 per share.

Replevin brought on the 25th of March 1856, by the appellees against the appellant, to recover a piano-forte alleged to be the property of the plaintiffs. Exception. The case was tried upon an agreed statement of facts, which with the prayer of the defendant rejected by the court, (Perry, J.,) is sufficiently stated in the opinion of this court. To the rejection of his prayer the defendant excepted, and the verdict and judgment being against him, appealed.

Assumpsit brought by the appellees against the appellant, to recover back money paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant, for a promissory note. The defendant was a public bill and note broker, and sold the note in question to the plaintiffs. without disclosing the name of his principal. The names of (he maker and one of the endorsers on the note proved to be forged, but this fact was not known by (he defendant at the time of the sale.

The plaintiff in error was indicted for murder. The indictment contains but one count, charging the prisoner with the wilful murder of Thomas H. Burnham, by shooting him with a pistol. The prisoner was arraigned, and pleaded not guilty.

This was an action on the case brought on the oth of September 1855, by the appellant against the appellee, to recover damages for an alleged bread) of warranty in relation to sixty-nine barrels of beef, alleged to have been sold by the defendant’s intestate to the plaintiff, in February 1846. The counts in the declaration, as weli as the agreements of counsel, are fully stated in the opinion of this court. Pleas, non assumpsit, limitations, and plena administravit.