Case Name: Kimmell vs. James
Court: General Court of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1797-10
Citations: 4 H. & McH. 71
Docket Number: 
Parties: Kimmell vs. James.
Judges: 
Reporter: Maryland reports, being a series of the most important law cases argued and determined in the Provincial Court and Court of Appeals of the then province of Maryland, from the year 1700 [i.e. 1658] down to the [end of 1799]
Volume: 4
Pages: 71–72

Head Matter:
GENERAL COURT,
OCTOBER TERM, 1797.
Kimmell vs. James.
Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. The gene» ral issue pleaded.
The plaintiff at the trial, offered evidence to prove, that the defendant was indebted to him in the sum of 30QL for goods sold and delivered on the 1st of May, 1795.
The defendant offered in evidence, as an account in bar, an instrument of writing, (which was not before filed) to show, that the plaintiff was indebted to him 2000L The said instrument of writing purporting to he an agreement, under seal, dated the 27th of July 1795, between the plaintiff and defendant, by which the plaintiff hound himself to pay unto the defendant the sum of 20OOl. at or upon the 20th of July 1797, in consideration of winch the defendant was to make over all his rights and claims of the one third of his lands, which he held by warrants of proclamation, or might recover until the 1st of January 1797. And it was agreed, that if there were no lands secured by proclamation warrants, or escheat, the said agreement to be void. ,
The defendant also offered to read in evidence the original bill filed in the court of chancery by the plaintiff, against the defendant, stating and referring to the said agreement as part of the said bill, and to be a true copy of the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. The bill filed in the court of chancery was to vacate the agreement, as being entered into by fraud and imposition, &c.
Duvarr, J. was of opinion that the said evidence, so effered by the defendant, was improper, inadmissible, and not competent to be read to the jury, and he refus ed to admit the same. The defendant excepted. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed to the court of appeals.
Hollingsworth, for the plaintiff.
Key, Mason and 'Shaaff, for the defendant.

Opinion:
The court op appears, at June term 1800, affirmed the judgment of the general court.