Case: LINDO v. GARDNER
Abbreviation: Lindo v. Gardner
Decision Date: 1803-02
Docket Number: 
Citation: 1 Cranch 343
Volume: 5
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: LINDO v. GARDNER.
Judges: 
Pages: 343–345

Head Matter:
LINDO v. GARDNER.
This was an action of debt brought by the administrators of Archibald Gardner against Abraham Lindo, upon a promissory note, in the circuit court of the district of Columbia, sitting in Washington. The act of congress respecting the district of Columbia had adopted the laws of Maryland, as the law of this part of the district. In Maryland the statute of 3 & 4 Anne, c. 9, respecting promissory notes, had been "introduced, used “and practised by the courts of law,” and thereby, and by virtue of the declaration of rights, section 3d, it became the law of the land; and the courts of Maryland, in their construction of that statute, have always respected the adjudications of the English courts. In the court below there was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs; to reverse which judgment the defendant sued out the present writ of error.
Debt will not lie, in Maryland, upon a promissory note. Quere. Whether the statute of limitations can be given in evidence, on nil debet?
The declaration is "of a plea that he render to them “336 dollars, 97 cents, money of accompt of the United “States of America, for that the defendant on the 5th “of October 1795, at, &c. by his certain note in writ-“ing of that date, subscribed with his proper manuscrip-“tion, and now here shewn to the court, acknowledged “himself to owe to Archibald Gardner the said sum of “336 dollars and 97 cents, which the said defendant “promised to pay the said Gardner, and to the order of “the said Gardner, at sixty days after the date of the said “note in writing, it being in consideration of value received.” It then avers the non-payment, &c. and makes a profert of the letters of administration which are averred to be “in due form.” The defendant in the court below pleaded nil debet; and after verdict against him, moved in arrest of judgment, because,
1. An action of debt cannot be maintained upon the promissory note set forth in the declaration.
2. It does not appear that the plaintiffs had obtained such letters of administration, as to entitle them to maintain an action upon the said note.
3. The declaration is in the debet and detinet, and ought to be in the detinet only.
There was also a bill of exceptions stating the refusal of the court to suffer the defendant to give the statute of limitations in evidence on the plea of nil debet.
The note was in these words, “Philadelphia, Octo-“ber 5, 1795. At sixty days, I promise to pay to the or “der of Mr. Archibald Gardner, three hundred and thirty “six 97/100 dollars, value received.” A. Lindo.
Peacock, for plaintiff in error,
was about to produce authorities on the first point, when he was stopped by Chase, justice, who said, that an action of debt will not lie in Maryland upon a promissory note.
The capias, which, in Maryland, is considered as part of the record, was in the detinet only. The declaration was in neither the debet nor detinet, having omitted those words altogether.

Opinion:
No opposition being made on the part of the defendant in error, judgment was afterwards reversed without argument.
See Note B. in the Appendix.