Steinmetz v. Hammond

General Court of Virginia

Steinmetz v. Hammond

2 Md. 399

DecidedOctober 15, 1789

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Md. 399 (Steinmetz v. Hammond) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering General Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Steinmetz v. Hammond, 2 Md. 399 (Va. Super. Ct. 1789).

Pincite

Opinion

At this term, without being warned to appear, the defendant, William, Hammond, of Baltimore County, voluntarily came into Court by his attorney, (by and with the consent of the plaintiff,) and confessed effects of the said De Drusina, &c. in his hands, to the amount of 400/. current money, and judgment of condemnation was thereupon entered against him, &c.

Afterwards, on the 29th of October, 1792, the defendant brought a writ of error, and the judgment of the General Court was reversed in the Court of Appeals at June term. 1794.

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

At this term, without being warned to appear, the defendant, William, Hammond, of Baltimore County, voluntarily came into Court by his attorney, (by and with the consent of the plaintiff,) and confessed effects of the said De Drusina, &c. in his hands, to the amount of 400/. current money, and judgment of condemnation was thereupon entered against him, &c.

Afterwards, on the 29th of October, 1792, the defendant brought a writ of error, and the judgment of the General Court was reversed in the Court of Appeals at June term. 1794.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Md. 399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steinmetz-v-hammond-vagensess-1789.