Case Name: M'Evoy, et al. vs. The Mayor, &c. of Baltimore
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1810-12
Citations: 3 H. & J. 193
Docket Number: 
Parties: M‘Evoy, et al. vs. The Mayor, &c. of Baltimore.
Judges: The cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J. and Buchanan, Gantt, and Earle, J.
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: 3
Pages: 193–194

Head Matter:
M‘Evoy, et al. vs. The Mayor, &c. of Baltimore.
Appeal from Baltimore County Court. This was an action of debt, brought in the name of The Mayor and Oily Council of Baltimore, at the instance and for the use of The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church, in the Town of Baltimore, against the defendants, (now appellants.) The facts as agreed upon were these: It is admitted that the bond stated in the declaration was duly executed by the defendants to the plaintiffs, on the 7th of December 1802, reciting, that “whereas the above bound James M'Evoy hath obtained from the mayor of the city of Baltimore a license of admission to use and execute the office and employment of a broker within the city of Baltimore. Now the condition of this obligation is such, that if the above bound James M’Evoy, do and shall welL and faithfully execute and perforin the office and employment of a broker, between party and party, without fraud, collusion, imposition, or any crafty or corrupt devices, and do and shall faithfully execute every trust committed to him as broker, then this obligation to be void,” &c. The bond was thus endorsed: “Approved Deer. 7, 1802. Jas. Calhoun, Mayor,” &c. It is admitted that the said James M'Evoy received the tickets expressed in the following receipt, viz. “Balto. Sepr. 12, 1803. Reed, of Fras. Bcestón, one hundred tickets to the Roman Catholic Cathedral Church Lottery, numbered from No. 10601 to 10700, , , , , both included; For which I promise to be accountable,-. ■jaunts MlEvoy^ Brokbr.” That the said AiEvoy sold tfib said tickets before the 8th of October 1804, for the siiih of §1000. That after the Said tickets had thus beeii sold, the said james AlEvóy gave the following promissory note for the payment of the said sum of money, t6§lOO0i Báitifíioré, Octo. 8, 1804. Thirty days after date, I promise to pay the Revd. Francis Ííeeston, or order, one thousand dollars, for value received. James AlEvoyP That at the time of receiving the said promissory note the sáid Francis Beeston, who was the agetitof the said Trustees oj the said Roman Catholic Church, gave to James MEvoy a receipt for (he said dote, expressing that the said note, when paid, should be considered as a full payment of the money received for the said tickets; and that ■ the said promissory ítoití hath not been paid. The county court gave judgment for the plaintiffs. From that judgment the defendants appealed to this court.
In a debt on a , bond given by a broker m the city of Baltimore, The i {‘plication to the plea of genu-ai performance* set out the ordinance for the admission and regulation of broker»; also the appointment of the broker, &c. & the act incorporating the Roman Catholic Congrega* tion, at whose instance and for whose use, the action was brought* Also the act authorising a lottery im the benefit of the congregation, and the delis ery to the Broker of 100 lottery tickets in the lottery, amounting to í$1000, lo be sold by him for tine benefit of the eoxv* gregatlon. Breach, that he sold the tickets, and did , not account therefor The defendants rejoined payment, and oa the trial, it was admitted that af- , ter the tickets had been sold, the , Bioker gave a promissory note to the agent of the congregation f< t the amount, due, and the agent gave rhe Broker a reeeint for the note, expressing that the note when paid, should be considered as a full payment of the money due fbr the tickets; and thaf tha note had not been paid. Held, that the plaintiff* wight recover in this Ration,
The cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J. and Buchanan, Gantt, and Earle, J.
Winder, for the Appellants,
contended, that taking the promissory note released the bond entered into as broker. That it was an indulgence granted to the principal itf the bond, by which the sureties were released. He also contended, that the act of 1796, ch. 68, incorporating the city of Baltimore, did not take in the case of brokers, so as to entitle any person to recover on their bonds.
Harper, for the Appellees.

Opinion:
JUDGMENT AEFIRmER.