Hudson v. Goodwin

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Hudson v. Goodwin

5 H. & J. 115

Court of Appeals of Maryland·Decided June 15, 1820·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Buchanan, J.

There 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.

JUDGMENT REVERSED,

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Buchanan, J.

There 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.

JUDGMENT REVERSED,

Hudson v. Goodwin, 5 H. & J. 115 (Md. 1820).

Pincite

5 H. & J. 115 (Hudson v. Goodwin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related