Atlantic Reporter Volume 68

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1908 edition. Excerpt: ...of recovery against him. The fourth and fifth exceptions were successively taken to the courts' refusal to permit the defendant at the extension of the judgment to prove, first, a total, and, secondly, a partial, want of consideration for the note as between its original parties. It is stated in this connection in the record that the defendant admitted in answer to a question from the trial judge that suit had been brought on the note by the payee against tbe maker, and that this same defense bad been set up In that suit and the plaintiff therein had obtained a verdict and judgment against the maker of the note, and that no appeal had been taken therefrom. Even If the judgment by default in the present case had not been conclusive against any right in the defendant to show, at its extension, a total or partial want of consideration for the note as between its original parties, it Is clear that upon the making of that admission by the defendant the learned judge below committed no error In refusing to permit him to go Into the question of the consideration for the note as between the original parties. On the day of the hearing of this appeal the appellant filed an application for a writ of diminution to correct the record by supplying copies of (1) the affidavit and notices to plead, filed with the declaration, In order to show that the suit was brought under the practice act of Allegany county, and (2) the docket entries to show that a demurrer was filed to the declaration in Allegany county, and was overruled by the court there before the removal of the case to Garrett county. The writ is also asked for the further purpose of correcting the statements In the third and fourth bills of exceptions touching admissions made by the defendant, ...