clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search		 search for:
clear space
white space
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 31   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

OHIO LIFE INS. & TRUST CO. VS. ROSS & WINN. 31
in the instrument, strictly speaking, a bill accepted by Hancock
and Mann could not be passed to Dawson and Norwood—that
could only be done by the payee or indorsee of the bill, and
yet I presume it would not be contended, if these bills had been
accepted by Hancock and Mann, before they were indorsed by
Dawson and Norwood, that they would not come within the
provisions of the deed. The acceptance by Hancock and
Mann, is certainly prima facie evidence, that they were indebted
to the drawer of the bills, in their amount, and such acceptance
is an engagement to pay that amount to the payees, Dawson
and Norwood, to whom they became indebted as acceptors,
which brings them within the tenor of the deeds of mortgage.
It is true, Hancock and Mann, the acceptors, did not pass these
bills to Dawson and Norwood; nor could they so pass any bills
accepted by them, as that could only be done by the payees, or
indorsees; and, therefore, if it is indispensable to bring notes,
and bills within the provisions of the deeds, that they should be
passed by Hancock and Mann to Dawson and Norwood, it is
obvious that the term "acceptance" had as well be struck out of
the deeds.
My opinion, therefore, is that this objection cannot be main-
tained.
The defendant Robert B. Hancock has been examined under
the usual order of the court, passed in such cases; but his
competency is excepted to by the defendants, Winn and Ross,
upon the ground that he is materially interested in the event of
the suit, and in maintaining the plaintiffs' claim.
This witness is of the firm of Hancock and Mann, the accep-
tors of the bills held by the plaintiffs, and the makers and ac-
ceptors of the notes and bills held by Winn and Ross, as trus-
tees of Samuel Jones; and as the question in this case is,
whether the property in controversy shall be applied to the sat-
isfaction of the one or the other of these creditors, the witness
being liable to both, would seem to be in equilibrium; except
as to the costs of this case, from which confessedly he has been
released, and if so, he would clearly be a competent witness.
Greenleaf on Evidence, sections 399, 420.

  		clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 31   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.

Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!

An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives