Case Name: Mudd vs. Reeves
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1806-06
Citations: 2 H. & J. 368
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mudd vs. Reeves
Judges: The cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J. Buchanan, and Nicholson, J. by
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the General Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, form 1800 ... [to 1826]
Volume: 2
Pages: 368–369

Head Matter:
Mudd vs. Reeves
The amount expressed in a note, purporting to be a genuine bank note, but which was proved to be fbrg* edj may be r eedvbi’Sd in an action of úsáíiñtpsib by the holder of the note from the person of .whom he received« it, although time of its receipt, neither party knew it not to be Genuine, and the defendant did not Warrant 'it to he genuine, tfr eii¿ dorse it.
ÁppeAí. front Pharles County Court. An action of assumpsit was brought by the appellant against the appellee, and the declaration coilfairied counts, for money had ■and received^ for the price of a gelding sold, a quantum mtruii for á gelding sold, for money paid, láid out.arid e&pehded, and fot money lent arid advanced. The general issue was pleaded. At the trial the plaintiff gave in evidence, that sometime before the bringing the action', he agreed with the defendant to sell hiriivk horse for the suns of g60, and that the defendant agreed to pay that sum For the horse; that the horse was to be delivered orí the payment of the price agreed upon. That on the day after the'agreement, the defendant sent to the plaintiff the paper produced, purporting tO be a bank note of the Bank of Hallmior'e for §100. That the person by whom the note was sent delivered it to the plaintiff, who, before receiving it, asked the opinion of one M'-Phérson whether the note Was genuine or not, who Was of opinion that the note wae genuine. That the plaintiff delivered the horse, according to the defendant’s request,, to the person by whom the defendant had sent the note, and the plaintiff also, at the same time, according to the defendant’s request, paid to the same person, for the defendant, 840, being the difference between the sum specified in the note, and the price of the horse. That the defendant received the 840» The plaintiff then gave in evidence* that the note was forged. There was'no evidence that the defendant or plaintiff knew or suspected that the note was forged, nor was there any evidence that the defendant had endorsed the note, or had expressly warranted it to be genuine; but both plaintiff and defendant considered it genuine at the time. The defendant then prayed the court for their instruction to the jury, and the court, (Key and Clarice, A. J.J according to the defendant’s prayer, were of opinion, and did instruct the jury, that if they should be of opinion, from the evidence, that the defendant, at the time he sent the note to the plaintiff* did not know that it was a forged note, or had not endorsed it to the plaintiff, or expressly warranted it to be a good note, that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover; and that the law, from the evidence offered, did not imply a warranty or contract on the part of the defendant to pay the sum specified in the note, to the plaintiff, although the note was forged, unless he knew that the note was forged when he delivered it to the plaintiif, or had endorsed the note, or expressly warranted it to be a genuine one. The plaintiff excepted; and the verdict and judgment being for the defendant, the plaintiff brought this appeal.
The cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J. Buchanan, and Nicholson, J. by
7'. Buchanan, and Chapman, for the Appellant;
and by
C. Dorsey, and Baker, for the Appellee.

Opinion:
JUDGMENT REVERSED, AND PROOEDENDQ AWARDED,