Hammett v. Dudley
This text of 62 Md. 154 (Hammett v. Dudley) 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.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question in this case relates to the application of payments. If the accommodation draft has not been paid in point of law, the judgment below was correct. There was a continuous account between the plaintiffs and John Dillahay, kept by the plaintiffs alone, and reaching from February 4th, 1880, to March 30th, 1882. This draft is charged as one of the debits against John Dillahay. The credits are more than sufficient to extinguish this draft, and all the debits antecedent to it. Under these circum[158]*158stances it is settled that the credits must be applied to the settlement of the earlier items on the debit side ■ of the account. The draft was therefore in point of law paid. The Court properly rejected the defendant’s first prayer; but erred in rejecting the second and in making the ruling mentioned in the bill of exceptions. Neidig vs. Whiteford, 29 Md., 178.
Judgment reversed,, without awarding a new trial.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
62 Md. 154, 1884 Md. LEXIS 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammett-v-dudley-md-1884.