Thomas v. Price, to Use of Ward
| Decision Date | 30 April 1869 |
| Citation | 30 Md. 483 |
| Parties | JOHN THOMAS, Garnishee of PAUL JONES v. JOHN O. PRICE, use of THOMAS WARD. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from the Court of Common Pleas.
Attachment on judgment. Thomas Ward, to whose use a judgment, obtained by John O. Price, against Paul Jones, had been entered, issued an attachment thereon, which was laid in the hands of the appellant. The appellant appeared and pleaded nulla bona.
Two exceptions were taken to the rulings of the Court of Common Pleas, by the garnishee, which will be found sufficiently stated in the opinion of this Court. Judgment was rendered against the garnishee, and he prosecuted this appeal.
The cause was argued before BARTOL, C.J., GRASON, MILLER and ROBINSON, J.
John P. Poe, for the appellant.
Bernard Carter, for the appellee.
Two exceptions were taken to the rulings of the Court below, by which certain evidence offered by the appellant, was not permitted to go to the jury, and which constitute the grounds of this appeal.
The Court below refused to permit the witness, Hancock, to read to the jury, as evidence to sustain the garnishee's case certain entries in a book, made by him, not from his own knowledge of the transactions between the garnishee and Paul Jones, nor of the correctness of the items of the charges in the account of the former against the latter, but made exclusively from what was read to him by the witness, Lea, from memorandum books, the entries in which were made by Lea, who alone possessed any knowledge of the account between the garnishee and Paul Jones, and of the correctness or incorrectness of the items therein charged. The book which Hancock was about to read, was not a book of original entries, but was a mere copy of the memorandum books kept by Lea. Such a book was not admissible as evidence, and the Court below committed no error in refusing to allow its contents to be read to the jury. Green vs. Caulk, 16 Md., 573.
The witness, Lea, then proved the number of horses kept at livery, by the appellant, for Paul Jones, and the number of days they were so kept, during several months of the year 1864, and that the charge for each horse was seventy-five cents a day, the aggregate sum for such livery being $311.75 and that the appellant had pastured horses of Paul Jones, at Mr. Gilmor's, and had paid him therefor, $100. The appellant then offered to prove by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Steffen v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
...Co. v. Railroad Co., 37 S.W.2d 856; Kaplan v. Gross, 223 Mass. 152, 111 N.E. 853; Atlas Shoe Co. v. Abraham Bloom, 209 Mass. 569; Thomas v. Price, 30 Md. 483; v. Thurman, 112 Mich. 416; Carlton v. Carey, 83 Minn. 232, 86 N.W. 85; Jones v. A. Coast Line Railroad Co., 148 N.C. 449; Perrine v.......
-
Doggett v. Tatham
... ... f. o. b. cars Marriottsville, at a different price. On the ... 21st of June the defendant notified the stone company that he ... had orders for ... error. Green v. Caulk, 16 Md. 556; Thomas v ... Price, 30 Md. 483; Bullock v. Hunter, 44 Md ... 416; Heiskell v. Rollins, 82 Md. 14, 33 ... ...
-
Eberson v. The Continental Investment Co.
... ... the time they were true, citing Thomas v. Price, 30 ... Md. 483; Richmond v. Atkinson, 58 Mich. 413, 25 N.W ... 328. And, further, that ... ...
-
Carlton v. Carey
...such entries are not admissible if made on information from a third person, although communicated by him in the course of duty. Thomas v. Price, 30 Md. 483; White Wilkinson, 12 La. An. 359. Should these rules be adopted in full, the book was inadmissible, because the entries were not made b......