Strickland v. Lee

Bryan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. When we heard the former appeal in this case, we were required to consider the agreement on which this suit is brought, and to determine its construction. We decided that the first count in the declaration set forth a breach of the contract and stated a good cause of action for the plaintiff. The prayer of the plaintiff seems to have been drawn with the view of leaving to the jury the finding of all its material averments.

It requires them to find that the defendant sold the machine to Thomas and took from him the promissory note offered in evidence, and endorsed, ³⁸⁷ transferred and delivered to the plaintiff the note in payment of the machine, and that it was duly presented for payment, and was dishonored, and that the defendant had due notice thereof, but did not pay it, and that it remained unpaid for a period of three months after it became due, and is still unpaid, and that the plaintiff afterwards required the defendant to redeem it with another note, or notes, not having more than three months to run, or to give his own note at not over three months, and that the defendant refused to do so. It seems to us that under the circumstances hypothetically stated in the prayer, it was the duty of the defendant to redeem the note taken from Thomas, and this is in accordance Avith our former decision. 62 Md., 158 . The prayer was therefore properly granted. The defendant offered three prayers, of which the first and second were refused and the third was granted.

The