Hudson v. Goodwin

Decided June 15, 1820

Court of Appeals of Maryland · decided 1820-06-15

It was an action of assumpsit brought by the appellee, as indorsee of a proxnissory note, against the appellant, as maker. The declaration contained two counts, one upon the note, stating • ' _ *' it to have been made by the appellant on the 18th of March J 1813, and that he thereby, 9,0 days after date, promised to pay John E. Dorsey, or order, 8760, for value received; that Dorsey endorsed it -to William MiMechen, who endorsed it to the appellee.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1843

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1820-06-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the court was delivered by

Buchanan, J.

¶2There is nothing in the objection, that the name of JohnEdwarcl Dorsey is not sufficiently set out. But the endorsement on the note, on which the suit was brought, appears to be in blank; and though the plaintiff might have "filled it up at any time before verdict, yet not having done so, he is not entitled to recover. There is nor distinction between this and the case of Ringgold vs. Tyson, decided by this court at December term, 1810, and we see nothing to shake the authority of that case.

¶3JUDGMENT REVERSED,