Case Name: Smoot's Adm'r. vs. Bunbury's Ex'r
Court: General Court of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1801-05
Citations: 1 H. & J. 136
Docket Number: 
Parties: Smoot’s Adm’r. vs. Bunbury’s Ex’r.
Judges: 
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: 1
Pages: 136–137

Head Matter:
GENERAL COURT,
MAY TERM, 1801.
Smoot’s Adm’r. vs. Bunbury’s Ex’r.
A probate of an account under the act of 1729, ch. 20, omitting to stale that the creditor had not received '‘‘'any security” for his debt, is not evidence under that act
Appear from Charles county court from a judgment in favour of the defendant, the present appellee. It was an action oí assumpsit for sundry articles properly chargeable in account. The account exhibited commenced the 15th of February 1785, and ended the 25th of April 1786. General issue pleaded.
The plaintiff, to prove the. issue on his part, offered in evidence to the jury, the book of accounts of his intestate, containing an account against the defendant’s testator, stated in page 31, and which said book of accounts, in page 55, contained the following probate, made by and in the hand writing of the plaintiff’s intestate, except the signature of the justice, viz: «‘Charles county, ss. August 27, 1785. Then came Edward Smoot before me, one of the justices of the peace for the said county, and made oath on.the Holy Evangely of Almighty God, that all the accounts contained in this book, from page one to page fifty-five. are just and true, as they are and stand stated, and that he hath not directly or indirectly, to the best of his knowledge, received any part, parcel, or satisfaction for the same, more than the several credits therein given .
B. FendalV’
To which book of accounts and probate the defendant objected as not being competent evidence to the juryj and the county court (Stone, Ch. I.) sustained the objection. The plaintiff excepted, and the verdict and judgment being for the defendant, this appeal was prosecuted.
T. Buchanan, for the Appellant.
J. Campbell and W. Dorsey, for the Appellee.
The act of July 7729, ch. 20, s. 9, directs, that an account of money, &c. or other thing properly chargeable in account, ■which shall arise due, and shall be sworn by the creditor, “to be “just and true, and that, he or she hath not, directly or indirectly, “received (to his or her knowledge,) any part or parcel of the “money, tobacco or other goods, charged as due by such ac“count, or any security, or satisfaction for the same, more than “credit shall be given tor,” shall be received as good evidence in any court, &c.

Opinion:
Tke Gesteras Court affirmed the judgment of the County Court.