Bradley v. Louisville Food Products Co.

Stockbridge, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal presents a single question of law. The facts are apparently all agreed upon by the parties. The legal question does not seem to have been directly passed on heretofore in this State, but is one which may arise at any time and may be of considerable importance. .

The suit is between Mrs. M. Elizabeth Bradley and the Louisville Food Products Company upon certain promissory notes and a trade acceptance. These were made under the following! circumstances: On April 3rd, 1919, the Southern Cotton Oil Trading Company made a contract with George & Company, Incorporated, of Baltimore, for the sale to George & Company of 2,400 barrels of cotton seed oil; and about a month later George & Company sold 2,000 barrels of the oil to Marden, Orth & Hastings Corporation of New York. The trade acceptance reads as follows: “Ho. 1026. $9,088.73. “Hoy. '20th, 1919. “Thirty days after date pay to the order of ourselves eight thousand eighty-eight and 73/100 dollars. “The obligation of the acceptor hereof' arises out of the purchase of goods from the drawer. “Louisville Pood Products Co., “Incorporated, “J. T. Caldwell, Treasurer. “To George & Co., “Baltimore, Md. “Ho. 4852. “Due Dec. 22, 1919.” ³⁸⁷ The promissory notes were drawn by George & Company for $2,500 each, payable to the order of Marden, Orth & Hastings Corporation, at the rate of one note a month. All of these papers, both notes and acceptance, were before delivery endorsed by “J. T. Caldwell, treasurer, J. Elwood Bradley, Moncure H. Lyon, M. Elizabeth Bradley, B. E. Harvey, C. Blanche Harvey.” There is no question but what these endorsements were placed on the notes and the1 acceptance prior to delivery to the Louisville Rood Products Company, or that they were not paid in accordance with the face of the papers.

On June 7th, 1920, suit was brought against J. Elwood Bradley and, on March 1st, 1921, an absolute judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff for $16,344.76. On June 15th, 1920, suit was brought upon the papers above referred to against the present appellant, M. Elizabeth Bradley, and the notes and trade acceptance upon which Mrs. Bradley was sued were a portion of the cause of action in the suit against-J. Elwood Bradley. J. Elwood Bradley was president of George & Company, and Mrs. M. Elizabeth Bradley was his wife, and the other persons, whose names appear upon the back of the several paper’s, were officers of George & Company, except Mrs. Bradley and Mrs. C. Blanche Harvey, who was the wife of Mr. B. R. Harvey. These facts having been established, the counsel for the appellant moved for a judgment of non pros, in the present case, basing the motion upon section 2 of article 50 of the Code, which reads as follows: “Ho person shall institute more than one suit on a joint and several bond, promissory note, penal or single bill when the persons executing the same are alive and reside in the, same county; and if more suits than one be instituted on any such bond, promissory note, penal or single bill, judgments of non pros, shall be entered against the plaintiff in such suits.” ³⁸⁸ This motion was overruled and a judgment rendered by the Superior Court of Baltimore City against Mrs. Bradley, and it is from that action of tbe Court that tbe present appeal was taken.

Tbe section of the Code above quoted has formed a part of tbe law of this State since 1825, and the act which placed it among the statutes declared that the purpose of