Case Name: Harris, Administrator of Pitt, against William Paddison
Court: General Court of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1789-04
Citations: 2 Md. 252
Docket Number: 
Parties: Harris, Administrator of Pitt, against William Paddison.
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: 2
Pages: 252–253

Head Matter:
GENERAL COURT, (EASTERN SHORE,)
APRIL TERM, 1789.
Harris, Administrator of Pitt, against William Paddison.
THIS was an action of assumpsit on a promissory-note. Plea, non assumpsit. Verdict for 34/. curient money, and judgment thereon.
By a bill of exceptions taken at the trial, it appears, that the plaintiff offered in evidence to the Jury the following writing executed by the defendant, and delivered to the plaintiff’s intestate, viz. “ Received, November 30th, 1778, from Abraham, Pitt, the sum of three thoúsand four hundred pounds, which I promise to pay him or his order, on demand, for value received.
“ WILLIAM PADDISON.”
The defendant offered to give in evidence to the Jury, that Abraham Pitt the intestate, was the master of a trading vessel, and being on the point of making a voyage to sea, and being possessed of a large sum of continental money, was desirous of depositing the same in the hands of some person, and applied to the defendant for that purpose; and that he would take and keep the same for him, and at his rís¡k ; that the same was agreed to; and the sum of money mentioned in the said writing, was delivered to the said defendant only as a deposit, to be by him safely kept for the said Pitt, and that the same specific money was to be returned to the said Pitt, when he should apply fpr it, and that the defendant received it, and was to be answerable for it only as a bailee, and not originally as a debtor; and that the said writing was given only to secure to the said Pitt the return of the said money from the said defendant as bailee, and not as being originally a debtor. The plaintiff objected to such evidence.

Opinion:
But the Court overruled the objection, and determined that the evidence should be admitted.
(Harrison, Ch. J. and Goldsborough, J.)
The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals, which Court, at November term, 1791, affirmed the judgment of the General Court.