
    Harris vs. Earle’s Ex’rs.
    Boim'iS e"ceí5e2’ofjEh'n himg’iso co,wddghynR‘<5 against j l by the 20lh of August1 1810, orto puy toJ Srefil50,EWH oil-of'Mi8tii°muf ?uin i8io, an assignment hadbyiciiver™1 ae wni^or ws'daí¡n'h «and1 676ilib™ nil dS’on’íiu iTth “hurti”'1 jwiimwLvrirti'iuu w‘sSn’ansmmed by eH tu.t e hufore isioTaiid wiS' j «feivpf'am! h Oil returned to e 7i in Ju.y 1811 EHrc «rived from J Lon |ucipn<-nt¿2£u 3o, on tin-sota or • ini?, if mt<re*t on'1 theejudgment1, than'^Ri'so ainUan erlllm of asiumpSt toy.ícmifCgfíó! andiiiu-rest — hom, »recover
    Appeal from Baltimore County Court. Assumpsit. 1. On a special agreement — to assign a certain judgment to the amount of §150, and interest, or to pay that sum and interest, &c. 2. General indebitatus assumpsit for money 'ia<lani* received. Non assumpsit pleaded. On the trial the plaintiffs read ill evidence the following agreement, which it was admitted the defendant had executed at the period it purports to bear date, viz.
    T “Baltimore, June 26, 1810.
    E°r value received, I do hereby promise and engage to ^ave ass'Sne(l Jumes Earle, junior, of Easton, gtoO of the judgment rendered in the late general court for the & 'n tbe name of-Gray, against James Lloyd, on "'hicti there was an appeal, and in which appeal bond said Earle became the security of said Lloyd. And I do hereby promise and engage, that the said §150 of the juc*SmenC shall be due and free from all prior assignments and incumbrances whatever, and entitled to ^raw interest from this day till paid; and that this assignment shall be made and delivered to said Earle in Easton on or before the 20(h day of next August, or that I will pay said Earle on the 1st day of September the said sum of §130, with legal interest ft;oin this day in cash.
    
      n r r rr • JbdWOru Hams.
    The defendant then gave evidence, that he did procure, said Gray, in said agreement mentioned, who was the Kichanl Gray herein after mentioned, to assign and trans-*"er to him the judgment in said agreement mentioned, a short copy of which judgment, and the assignment thereof by Gray, the plaintiff'in said judgment, to the defendant, he gave in evidence, being a judgment rendered on the 17th 0f April 1804, for £75 damages, and 6761 wt. to-barco, costs; and the assignment or said judgment Irom Gray to the defendant, was dated1 18th of July 1810. It was admitted by the plaintiffs, that the defendant did, within the time prescribed in said agreement for the assignment therein mentioned, transmit (he said short copy of the judgment, and the said assignment thereon, from Gray to him, to hisagent at Easton, with orders to deliver the said assignment and judgment to Earle, for the purpose of complying with his engagement of assigning §150 part of the said judgment to Earle, which delivery, for the- purpose aforesaid, was made by the agent of the defendant. But Ihe defendant never made any written assignment of the said §150, part of said judgment, noi? caused the same to be done in any other manner than by the delivery of said judgment and assignment as aforesaid to Earle. That Earle returned said judgment and assignment from Gray to the defendant, sometime in the month of July 1811, and before the institution of the present suit. That the defendant received from James Lloyd, on account of the said judgment, the sum of §291 and 30 cents, on the 30th of November 1810, and after the paper aforesaid, purporting to be an assignment from Gray to the defendant, was tfansmitted and delivered to Earle; and that if interest could be demanded and received on said judg-merit, that there would still have been due and owing thereon a greater amount than Si60. The plaintiff then moved the court for their opinion and direction to the jury, that if they believed the facts so given in evidence and admitted, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover. Which direction arid opinion the Court, \_Bland, A. J.] accordingly gave. The defendant excepted; and the verdict and judgment being against him, he appealed to this court.
    The cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J. and Johnson, Martin, and Dorsey, J. by
    
      Winder, for the Appellant, and by
    
      Hoffman, for the Appellees.
   JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.  