Farmers & Mechanics Bank v. Hunter

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The material question in this case relates to the proper construction of a local law for Carroll County, sec. 16G of chapter 136, of the Acts of 1890, known as the Local Practice Act for that county. The plaintiff below, who is the appellant here, brought a suit in the Circuit Court for Carroll County, against the defendants., Jesse B. Powder, Clara B. Powder and the appellee, Daniel W. Hunter, upon a promissory note, dated the 2nd day of July, 1901, and payable six months after date to the plaintiff, for the sum of three hundred and fifty dollars, payable at its banking house in Westminster, Md., and purporting to be signed by the defendants with the following endorsements thereon : “Feb. 26th, 1902. By cash on account $50.00 and interest paid to July 2nd, 1902.” Two of the defendants were returned non est and the case was tried against the defendant Hunter before the Court, sitting as a jury, and on the 13th day of December, 1902, a judgment was entered in favor of the defendant, from which the plaintiff has appealed.

It appears from the record that the plaintiff’s declaration was filed under the local Act (Act 1890, ch. 136), applicable to Carroll County, and contained the usual counts, and a count upon the promissory note, and the affidavit as required by the Act. .Hunter, the defendant, appeared on the 12th day of August, and pleaded, first, that he never was indebted as alleged, second, that he never promised, as alleged. To these pleas he made the following affidavit; that each of them was true as pleaded ; that no amount of the plaintiff’s claim or demand was admitted to be due or owing ; that the whole amount of the claim or demand and each and every part thereof was disputed, and he knows that the paper or promissory note filed ¹⁵⁰ with the declaration, was not signed by him, or by his authority, and that the signature or name thereto, purporting to be his was not written by him or by his authority. The plaintiff at the trial of the case, to maintain the issue joined, offered the note in evidence, which, upon objection, was admitted, subject to exception, and closed its case. The uncontradicted evidence upon the part of the defendant, as to the signature to the note, was admitted subject to exception.

The defendant testified that he never signed the note or any other note for Jesse Powder, except one five years ago, for twenty dollars, and the signature to the note, was not in his handwriting. This testimony as to the signature to the note, was stricken out at the close of the case, upon motion of the plaintiff, but a motion to strike out the note as evidence on the part of the defendant, was denied by the Court. There was no exception to the action of the Court upon this ruling, but as the question is directly presented on the exceptions to the prayers, and as its determination disposes of this case, we shall consider it here. The ground of the action of the Court, in striking out the evidence of the appellee as to the denial of the signature, is stated to be, because the signature of the note was not denied by the defendant’s plea, and was therefore admitted under sec. 108 of Art. 75 of the Code, which provides that whenever the execution of any written instrument, filed in the case, is alleged in the pleadings in any action or matter of law, the same shall be taken as admitted for the purposes of the action or matter, unless the same shall be denied by the next