Armstrong v. Turner

49 Md. 589, 1878 Md. LEXIS 80
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedJuly 24, 1878
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 Md. 589 (Armstrong v. Turner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Armstrong v. Turner, 49 Md. 589, 1878 Md. LEXIS 80 (Md. 1878).

Opinion

Stewart, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This action is against the appellee, as a stockholder in the Chandelier Manufacturing Company of Baltimore.

No question is made as to his liability as such, but the objection is to certain items in the account of the appellants as not properly recoverable under the pleadings in the case.

The declaration being for goods bargained and sold and no count for work and labor, the testimony must necessarily be confined to matters relevant to this issue, and there was no error in the ruling in the first exception.

The claim of 8105.56 for certain castings ready to be shipped when the agent of the company countermanded the shipment, was a legitimate charge as for goods bargained and sold and properly recoverable under the issue.

There was evidence that their castings were placed in boxes ready for shipment at the time the agent gave notice not to ship them until further ordered.

This was constructive acceptance and delivery, and constituted the appellants the bailees thereof.

The appellants’ first prayer was objectionable, referring to work and labor as well as goods bargained and sold [600]*600embraced in tbe account, and his second prayer, affected with the .vice of the first, could not be granted, although the claim referred to therein of $105.56 was properly chargeable under the issue, as we have said.

(Decided 24th July, 1878.)

The appellee’s prayers were calculated to mislead the jury, and ought not to have been granted.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Boyington v. Sweeney
45 N.W. 938 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 Md. 589, 1878 Md. LEXIS 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-turner-md-1878.