Brown v. Warram
3 H. & J. 572
Opinion
The defendant could not, to defeat the action on the general issue, rely on the note being joint, but if he intended to avail himself of that circumstance he ought to have pleaded it in abatement. For the note being joint did not prove that the defendant had not assumed, and assumed, although another also assumed;-there was no variance of course between the allegata and probata.
JUSGMENT REVERSE», &üj
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Brown v. Warram, 3 H. & J. 572 (Md. 1815).
3 H. & J. 572 (Brown v. Warram) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Rosenthal v. Heft
150 A. 850 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1930)
Cruzen v. McKaig
57 Md. 454 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1882)
Sittig v. Birkestack
38 Md. 158 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1873)
Merrick v. Trustees of the Bank
8 Gill 59 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1849)
Ziele v. Executors of Campbell
2 Johns. Cas. 382 (New York Supreme Court, 1801)