Case Name: Gray and Biddle vs. Wood, et ux.
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1806-06
Citations: 2 H. & J. 328
Docket Number: 
Parties: Gray and Biddle vs. Wood, et ux.
Judges: The cause was argued in this court before Buchanan, Nioholson, and O sati, 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: 328–329

Head Matter:
Gray and Biddle vs. Wood, et ux.
An nothin on a fnomiwv.Y noto, indorsed in blank, l»y tin-* payee, may be maintained m Ins nunio for the xisr* of the holder, «llhon^h the lv>lder paid a valuable, «•«msi ¡eration to the pajee at the time of the endorsement» ■
A promissory note is not invalidated by being; antedated.
Appeal from Cecil county court. An action of assumpsit was brought in the names of the appellees, for the usé of Benjamin Sluyter, upon,a promissory note dated the 1st of January 1 SO 1, executed by the appellants, and payable 'on demand to Elizabeth; (the female appellee,) whilst ■ she was sole, by the name of Elizabeth JIugg, or order. The general issue was pleaded.
1. At the trial, the original note was produced by the plaintiffs in support of their action, and there appearing a blank endorsement in the name of the payee, Elizabeth JIugg, which the defendants proved to be her hand -writing, the defendants insisted that the note was transferred by the endorsement to Benjamin Sluyter, of which the institution of the suit for his use was an evidence. The defendants also offered testimony to show, that at the time this endorsement was made, Sluyter paid a valuable consideration for the note to Elizabeth JIugg, tvith a view to contend that the whole interest of the payee, in the note passed to Sluyter, and. that the action ought'to have been in his name as endorsee. But the court, [Tilghman, Ch. J. and Purnell, A. J.) refnsed-to let the testimony go to the jury, and were of opinion that the same was inadmissible. The defendant excepted.
2. The plaintiffs then called the subscribing witness to the note, to prove the execution of it, who proved that the note was executed by the defendants, and attested by him. the witness, but not on the 1st of January 1801; that the note was antedated, and he did not know, on what day it was executed. The defendants then prayed the' court to direct tho jury, that Ibis was not sufficient and proper evidence to go lo Ilia jury, to support the issue joined on the pari, of the plainuiA. But the court were of opinion, that the evidence was compliant auil propar, and permitted it io be given. The defeudauls excepied; ami the verdict and judgment being for the plaintiffs, tisis appeal was pi'ocecuted by the defendants.
The cause was argued in this court before Buchanan, Nioholson, and O sati, J. by
Cosden, for the Appellants;
and by
liarle, Bar roll and Carmichael, for the Appellees,

Opinion:
Tsrr, CorriiT
concurred with the County Court hi the opinion,', expressed in both of the bills of exception;;»
JUDÜ At ENT A V FIB M K »