Volume 25 — Maryland Reports

The declaration also contained a, count in trespass on the case for damages alleged to have resulted from the act complained of. The facts are stated in the opinion of this Court.

Appkal from the Superior Court of Baltimore city: Tiiis was an action of assumpsit by tbo appellees against the appellants, for goods sold and delivered. Plea, non assumpsit and issue. Exception.

Molilcr and John D. Graff, as partners. The declaration contained the common money counts, and also, several special counts on promissory notes, signed by I. W. Mohler, and one on a protested check, signed in the same name, and whicli it was averred was the partnership name under which the defendants conducted business as partners.

The declaration alleged: “That William Carr, trading under the name and firm of William Carr & Co., sues Joseph H. Meixel and McHenry Grafton, co-partners, trading under the name and firm of Meixel and Grafton, for that the defendants converted to tlioir own use, or wrongfully deprived tlio plaintiff of the uso and possession of tlie plaintiffs’s goods, that is to say, four barrels of whiskey; and the plaintiff claims therefor $500.

— The appellant, Henry ScMllinger, pleaded the general issue- and set off; the appellee replied, and issue was joined. Exception. The facts of the case are these: Kratt offered in evidence a promissory note, drawn by ScMllinger., for §300,. the signature to which -was admitted, and then rested láscase.

5th, 1860. “This Article of Agreement, entered into this day between G. M. Conner, C. C. Gatch, of the city of Baltimore, Md., of the first part, and the Mount Yernon Cotton Manufacturing Company, of the same place, of the second part, witnesseth : that the parties of the first part, (viz: Conner & Gatch,) agree to construct and place in good running order two of the said Conner’s Centripital Momentum Water-wheels, in the said company’s cotton mill; and the power of the two…

Arx’eal from the Superior Court of Baltimore city. This action was brought on the 23rd of Eobruary, 18G3, iu the Superior Court of Baltimore oily, by tho appellee against the appellant, to- recover the value of three thousamK bushels of oats shipped at Baltimore city by the appellee, between the 1st and 8th days of February,, 1862,, directed to> Lieutenant Fergusson, a Forage Agent of the U. S. Government, at the foot of 6th Street Wharf in Washington city.

The hill then states that Mailliouse, pretending to become dissatisfied with his contract with the complainant, on the 23rd January, 1863, conveyed his interest in said premises to his brother-in-law, the defendant, Miclielis; the complainant “joining as a party thereto, in order to signify his assent to said transfer, and at the request of, and in order to accommodate said Madhouse, agreeing to return to Min the three notes the complainant had received from him as security…

This was an action on the ease, brought by the appellees ¡against the appellant, to recover damages for injuries sustained by them in loss of goods, wares and merchandize taken and carried away from their store in the city of Baltimore, and for other injuries done them by a tumultuous assemblage .of people on the ‘21st of April, 1861.

This was an action of assitmjpdt by the endorsee against tlie drawer of a bill of exchange, brought on the 1st January, 1857, to recover the sum of $1,800.92, and is now in this Court on a second appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore city, where it was tried on a procedendo from this Court. The bill in question, was drawn by William R. Brailsford on S. D. Tonge. Tlie questions for consideration under the first appeal, as set forth in 15 Md.

Writ ok Error to the Circuit Courtfbr Baltimore-county- The plaintiffs in error were-jointly indicted for larceny at the May term, I860, of the Criminal Court of Baltimore city-On the 10th of July, during the- continuance- of the May term, — being arraigned they plead' not guilty, and'issue was* joined on tbat plea.

prayer for general relief. The allegations-cf the bill and facts of the ease are stated in the opinion of 1?lii3 Court. The appeal is from an order of the Court (Alexander, J.) setting aside the deed of the collector and making perpetu al the injunction before issued.

) to compel an account and payment to him of one-half of the proceeds of sales of lottery tickets in the Maryland Consolidated Lotteries, from the 1st of December, 1850, to the 1st of December, 1853. The allegations of the bill and facts of the case, are set forth in the opinion of this Court.

Appeal- from tlie Circuit Court for Anne- Arundel county? Petition filed by the appellant on the 13th of January, 1866, praying for an order requiring the appellee, Thomas Swann, Governor of Maryland, to shew cause why a Avrit of mandamus should not issue, commanding him, as Governor aforesaid,, to issue a commission to the petitioner, as Circuit Judge of the Second Judicial Circuit of the State of Maryland.

<p>Qualification of Jqixiia: „,Oatii of Office, — when to be Administered: Article'fe, sí», id-of the Constitution of 1804, entitled, “ Official Oaths ” indicates that the commission is a prerequisite to the qualification of an officer where the law or Constitution requires one to be issued.</p> <p>No clerk of Court has authority to qualify a person elected before he has been commissioned, for, in the absence of a commission, there would be no sufficient evidence oí an election or appointment.</p>

Appear from the Circuit Court of Baltimore city: The bill of complaint in this case was filed by the appellees against the appellant, in the Circuit Court of Baltimore city, oh the 24th of December, 1868, praying for an injunction to restrain further proceedings under a Mil in equity previously filed in the same Court, to set aside a deed of trust, as “well as certain .proceedings by attachment instituted for the purpose of reaching the proceeds of sale of the property…

The facts of this case are as follows: John J. Requardt, the appellee, filed his petition for the benefit of the insolvent laws on the 7th of February, 1863, and on the 1st of June following, by an order of the Court, was finally discharged.

Cross-Appeals from the ¡Superior Court of Baltimore city. This action was brought by William F. .Dalrymple against the Maryland Fire Insurance Company, in the Superior Court of Baltimore city, (Martin, J.,) on the 31st of December, 3862.

Cross-Appeals from the Superior Court of Baltimore city. This suit was brought by Dalrymple against the Baltimore Marine Insurance Company.

No question arose at the trial as to the pleadings — all errors of pleading having been waived by agreement. Reception. At the trial of the cause, the plaintiff*Pearson Chapman, being sworn and examined, testified as follows: That on the 21st of October, 1863,he and hisconsin,RobertP.

vs. Hodges, et al., reported in 24 Md. Rep., 468. In that case, Hodges and others, on the 28th of September, 1860, filed their bill in the Circuit Court of Baltimore city, alleging that George Jackson was indebted to them, and that he had fraudulently conveyed, through the instrumentality of other parties therein named, certain lots of ground, with the improvements thereon, to Elizabeth, his wife; and praying that the deeds, whereby the said lots, &c., had been conveyed,…

This was an action by the appellant against the appellee to recover the value of merchandise lost by the latter, in forwarding the same from New York city to Baltimore.:— The declaration contained three special counts in case, and one count in trover. By agreement filed, all errors of pleading were waived, and any evidence made admissible which could have been given under any special counts and pleas. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of this Court.

84. The defendant pleaded performance, and on said plea'issue-was joined. The plaintiff afterwards filed a bill of particulars, for which see the opinion of this Court.

Appeal- from tbe Superior Court of Baltimore city. This is- an appeal from an order'of the’Superior Court of Baltimore' city, (Martin, J.,-) of the? 28th of November, 1864, sustaining a motion to quash an attachment on original process issued on the'16th of June, 1864, from said Court, under the Act ófl864,<ch. 306, and laid in the'hands of Isaac Oppenheimer, ágainst certain goods- which, if was charged, had been conveyed and made over to him by his brother, Ernest…

vs. Oppenheimer, ante p. 350. On the 15th of June, 1864, the appellant caused to be issued from the Court of Common Pleas of Balti-Baltiinore city, against Ernest Oppenlieimer on attachment on original process, under the Act of 1864, ch. 306.

The plaintiff declared that the defendant, a corporation, owning a railroad and accustomed to run railway cars along the track of said road in the city of Baltimore, did, on the 9th day of June, 1859, negligently and carelessly cause said cars to run upon and against the plaintiff, whereby she was greatly injured, permanently maimed and crippled , and her life imperiled.

Magrath, an orphan and an infant, alleging that the appellant had been so appointed guardian at the request of the great-grandmother of the child, and against the wishes of the mother, and claiming that he, the petitioner, was uncle to the child, and as such had a right to the guardianship, and praying the removal of the appellant and the appointment of himself, the appellee, as guardian.

Brendel sues as well for himself as all other creditors of J ohn FL Muller, deceased; that the said Muller was, in his lifetime, indebted unto him in the sum of $1,560 for board, from the 19th day of March, 1857, being ten years, less seven days, at $3 per week; that the said Muller being seized of a lot of ground in said city, departed this life on the 12th of March, 1857, leaving a last will and testament, by which he devised all his estate to his wife, Margaret A. Muller,…

A ppeal from the Circuit Court of Baltimore city: The appellees, the complainants below, filed their bill in equity on the 10th of February, 1866, charging as follows : That your orators being the holders and owmers of certain promissory notes of James II.

The report of the trustee discloses the fact that on the 20th day of October, 1859, he sold the property mentioned in the proceedings, “ to the North Baltimore Building Association,” (the mortgagee,) “ it being the highest bidder,” &c. On the 11th day of November, 1859, certain exceptions to the ratification of the sale were filed, which it is unnecessary to notice, as they were not relied on in aigument.

The object of the bill was to compel the appellee to return to the appellant nineteen shares of -the stock of the Powhatan Steamboat Company, transferred to him as collateral security for the repayment of a loan. The facts of the case sufficiently appear in the opinion of this Court.

-Appeal from tbe Superior Court of Baltimore city, in Equity: The bill in this case was filed by tbe appellants in the Court below to have set aside two deeds alleged to have been executed by tbe appellant, Jacob, without consideration, and under duress of tbe appellee, and J.o have an account taken of certain personal property taken possession of by tbe appellee under the same instrument, and sold by him.

There are but two questions arising on this appeal, both of them questions of construction, and neither of them requiring a further statement of details than is made in the opinion of this Court.

A ppiial from the Superior Court of Baltimore city: The appellant instituted this suit on the 1st day of August, 1863, to recover damages for a personal injury sustained by him while engaged as brakesman in the employ of the defendant. All errors in pleading were released, and the case tried upon the facts as presented at the trial.

The declaration contained two counts, one a general count for work done, the other a special count for the usual broker’s commissions for procuring a purchaser for the defendant’s house at a price which the defendant accepted. The case was submitted to the Court for determination, without the intervention of a jury. The facts of the case, and the arguments of counsel on a motion to dismiss the appeal, are sufficiently stated in the opinion of this Court.

It states the purchase by Pollack of the defendant, Cohen, of a warehouse in Gay street in Baltimore city, for the sum of $8,000, of which $3,700 was paid, and $4,300 remained due; and that Pollack, with the knowledge and co-operation of Cohen, expended $3,781.91 thereon in repairs, &c.; that Pollack being betrothed to the daughter of Cohen, the intercourse between them was so confidential, that the latter knew and was apprized of the in solvency of Pollack, and under the…

Writ or Error to the Criminal Court of Baltimore city. Leah Coston, on behalf of Simon and Washington Coston, as mother and next friend, petitioned the Criminal Court of Baltimore city for the writ of habeas corpus to be directed to Samuel Coston, commanding him to produce before said Court the bodies of Simon and Washington Coston, alleging that they had been “ illegally arrested,” and were then “ held in custody ” by him.

Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Howard county. The writ of error in this case was sued out by the State.

Tin's was an action by the appellees against the appel6i.nfc !..> recover damages for loss and. injury sustained by them from a collision caused by the over-running and sinking of a canal boat loaded with lime owned by them, by the steam ferry boat “Maryland,” plying between Havre-de-Graee and Perryville, on the Susquehanna river.

Appeal fr.om the Circuit Court of Baltimore city. The bill ip ¡this pause was filed on the 22pd of March-, 1861, by the appellee, as widow of Paul Maurer, for an assignment of dower, damages for its detention, and for discovery.

Petition for a mandamus by the appellant, to compel the appellee, the clerk of the Circuit Court, to issue to him a license to sell spirituous liquors in the borough of North East, in Cecil county. The case is fully stated in the opinion of this Court.

Appeaj. from tbe Superior Court of Baltimore city. This was axa. action brought by tbe appellant against tbe appellees to recover the sum of $3,438.86 alleged to be tbe proceeds of certain promissory notes sent by them to Josiah Lee & Co., endorsed, “for collection,” which sum it was also alleged the said Lee & Co. had paid over, when collected, to the appellees, in payment of their own pre-existing debt. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of this Court.

- Nussear, on the 18th-of June, 1863. The declaration contained the- common-money counts-, a count for work done, and also a count on a promissory note. The defendants pleaded,- 1st ¿non-assumpsit,* 2nd, non-assumpsit infra tres aamos f 3rd, actio non aoorevit infra tres annosf and 4th, plene admvnistrmit. At the trial several exceptions were taken on- both sides, — ‘those of the appellants only need be stated-. Fi/rst Exception.