Case ID: h-g_2/html/0098-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robertson vs. Mills.
    June 1827.
    .in an action against one partner, by the payee of a partnership note, to recover the amount thereof, the other partner is a competent witness for the defendant, to prove that the consideration of said note was for the witness’s exclusive benefit, given to secure a debt due by him on his own account; and that when he signed the note he informed the plaintiff that he was not authorised to sign the defendant’s name to it.
    Appeal from Saint Mary’s County Court. Action of assumpsit on a promissory note drawn by Rhoads and Mills, in favour of the plaintiff, (now appellant,) on the 24th of May 1821, for $171, payable 78 days after date; and also for money had and received. The action was brought against Rhoads & Mills, but Mills only was arrested. He pleaded non assumpsit, on. which issue was joined.
    At the trial the plaintiff swore Josiah Turner, a competent witness, who deposed that he had received leitersand bills from Willard Rhoads, and that he had seen said Rhoads write, and that the signature to the said promissory note, filed in this cause, was in the handwriting of Rhoads; that he had known the defendant and Rhoads for several years, and in 1820 they had a compting room in Baltimore, and were partners in the mercantile business, and were selling goods together when he last saw them in Baltimore, which was just previous to the date of the said note; that he had heard both Rhoads and the defendant say they were partners in the mercantile business, both before and after the date of the said promissory note. The plaintiff next swore Philip Turner, who stated that at the date of the said promissory note, Rhoads and the defendant had a eompting house on Light-street wharf, Baltimore, in which there were goods, and that he had seen Rhoads and the defendant, both before and after the date of the execution of said promissory note, in the compting house aforesaid, engaged in purchasing and selling goods. The defendant then offered to swear as a witness the said Willard Rhoads, to prove that the consideration of said promissory note was for the peculiar and exclusive benefit of him Rhoads, and that the said note was given to secure a debt due by him on his own account, (and not front the firm of Rhoads and Mills,) to the plaintiff; and that when he signed the said promissory note he informed the plaintiff that he was not authorised to sign the defendant’s name to it. To the admissibility of which last mentioned testimony the plaintiff objected; but the Court, [Stephen, Ch. J. and Key and Plater, A. J.] overruled the objection, and permitted the said Rhoads to he sworn, and his testimony aforesaid to go to the jury. The plaintiff excepted; and the verdict and judgment being for the defendant, the plaintiff appealed to this court.
    The cause was argued before Buchanan, Ch. J. and Harmj. and Martin, J.
    
      
      Magruder, for the Appellant,
    contended, that Rhoads was an incompetent witness to prove the facts for which he was offered and admitted to prove. He cited Owings & Piet vs Low, 7 Harr. & Johns, 124. 2 Wheat. Selw. N. P. 870; and Goodacre vs Breame, Peake’s N. P. 174.
    
    
      C. Dorsey, for the Appellee,
    cited Ridley vs Taylor, 13 East, 182. 1 Phill. Evid. 54.
   JUDGMENT APEIRMED.