Case Name: The State vs. David Stewart
Court: General Court of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1799-10
Citations: 4 H. & McH. 422
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State vs. David Stewart.
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: 422–423

Head Matter:
GENERAL COURT,
OCTOBER TERM, 1799.
The State vs. David Stewart.
Assumpsit for money had and received. The action was entered at the time it was brought, « at the instance and for the use of William Hall, 3d, and others, commissioners for building a new prison in the city of Annapolis;” but at the trial of the cause this entry was stricken out by the counsel for the plaintiff.
The counsel for the plaintiff, at the trial, offered evidence to the jury to prove, that the defendant was, at an adjourned court held in November 1787, in and for AnneArundel county, appointed, by the justices there met to assess the county charges, collector of the said county charges according to law, and that he accepted the said office of collector, but did not execute a bond as the law required; and that in the list of sums de, livered to him by the said court to collect, there was the sum of SOOl. current money, being part of the sum dir rected to be collected and paid for the purpose of building a prison in the city of Annapolis, under the act of assembly passed at November session 1785, ch. 73; and that the defendant solicited and obtained from the justices of the court met to assess the county charges in the year 1788, an-allowance for insolvents due to him as collector of the said charges for the preceding year. The defendant, by his counsel; prayed the court to direct the jury, that on. the said evidence, as offered, the present action, could not he maintained. . - ...
Kilty, for the plaintiff.
Ridgely, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Chase, Ch. J.
The court are of opinion, that the evidence offered is not competent to support this action in the name of the state of Maryland, and direct the jury to find a verdict for the defendant.
The plaintiff excepted. Verdict for the defendant.
Duvall, J. concurring.