Gardner's Administrator v. Lindo
This text of 1 D.C. 78 (Gardner's Administrator v. Lindo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
refused to admit the act of limitations to be given in evidence, (see 1 Cr. Rep. 343, 462, 465.) After verdict for the plaintiff, it was moved, in arrest of Judgment, 1st, That debt will not lie on a promissory note. 2d, That it does not appear that letters of administration were granted to the plaintiff. 3d, That the action is in the debet and deiinel.
The Court, at a subsequent term decided that debt would lie on a promisory note, and that the other two objections were too late after verdict.
Reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States, (1 Cranch, 343,) because an action of debt will not lie in Maryland, upon a promissory note.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 D.C. 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardners-administrator-v-lindo-dcd-1802.