Case ID: h-j_7/html/0466-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pike vs. Dashiell’s Adm’r.
    June, 1823 
    
    Separate actions cannot be maintained on a joint promissory note made by two, since the act of 1811, ch. 161.
    
    Appeal from Somerset County Court. This was an action, of assumpsit on a joint promissory note executed by Dashiell 
      (the defendant’s intestate) and one Bennett, on the 6th of October 1817, promising, six months after date, to pay to the plaintiff) (now appellant) or order, $69 14, for value received. The following case was stated for the opinion of the courtt Bennett and Dashietl jointly executed the note above stated. -Soon after its execution Dashietl died intestate, and letters of administration on his estate were granted to the defendant. Bennett survived Dashietl, is now living, and has been relieved under the act for the relief of insolvent debtors. This suit was brought against the defendani for the recovery of the money due on the said note. The defendant pleaded in abatement that the note was joint and not several. The question For the court to decide was, whether or not the defendant was liable in a court of law for the payment of the money by virtue of the act of assembly of 1311, ch. 161? The county court gave judgment on the case stated, for the defendant; and the plaintiff appealed to this court.
    The cause was argued before Buchanan, Earle, Dorsey and Stephen, J. by
    
      J. Bayly, for the Appellant, and by
    
      T. Bayly, for the Appellee.
    
      
      
        ) This case was omitted to be published in its proper place.
    
   JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.