Case Name: Grant vs. Beall
Court: General Court of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1799-10
Citations: 4 H. & McH. 419
Docket Number: 
Parties: Grant vs. Beall.
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: 419–420

Head Matter:
GENERAL COURT,
OCTOBER TERM, 1799.
Grant vs. Beall.
This case came up originally by way of appeal from Allegany county court. It was an action of assumpsit.
The declaration, contained sundry counts, viz. sundry mattersmoney had and received; money lakl out and expended; use and occupation of a tenement! and indebitatus assumpsit for 205?. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit and the act of limitations — .Issues were joined.
1. The plaintiff, f Grant, J at the trial in the county court,produced one Simeon Hendrickson as a witness, who after being sworn in chief, discovered by his own'testimony that he was a tenant on the land of the plaintiff, by virtue of an agreement made between him and the defendant! that he had paid all his rents to the defendant, and then had the defendant’s receipts for the money paid. After this was disclosed by. the witness, the defendant, by Ms counsel, objected to the witness as incompetent to give evidence in this cause, and prayed the opinion of the court thereon. The couuty court, [Craik, Ch. J.] determined that the said Hendrickson was incompetent as a witness. The plaintiff excepted, and the verdict being against him, he prosecuted an appeal to this court.
The Generar Court, at May term, 1798, reversed the judgment of the county court, and under the second section of the act of 1790, ch. 42, retained the action for trial in this court. At this term, (October 1799,) the cause came on for trial, when
2. The plaintiff gave evidence to the jury, that the defendant, as his agent, had received the sum of 78Í. for the rent of certain lands belonging to him the plaintiff, and which the defendant had rented oat for him. The defendant proved that 40?. -14s. 0d. part of the said sum of 78?. liad been received by him the-defendant, -for the plaintiff, more than three years next before the impetration of the original writ of the plaintiff in this case impétrate;]. The plaintiff offered no evidence of any demand by Mm made upon the defendant for tEe said sum, of 78?. or any part thereof, previous to tiro bringing of this suit, nor did he offer any evidence of any assumpsit made by the defendant to pay the money by him so. received as aforesaid to the plaintiff! except tlié'assurapsit which the law in this case implies.
The defendant prayed the opinion of the court, and their direction to the jury, that the plaintiff, upon the is-, sues joined, could not recover for any sum or sums of money,, but such as the plaintiff proved he the defendant bad received for him within three years next Before the impetration of the writ in this case impetrated.
Johnson, for the plaintiff.
¿Jason and Clagett, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Chase. Ch. J.
The court are of opinion, that the Statute of limitations in this case does not bar any part of the claim of the plaintiff as above proved, and refuse té give the direction to the jury an prayed. The defendant excepted, and appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, at June term 1801, affirmed the judg - ment of the General Court,
Duvall, J concurring.