Legal Opinion

Woodcock v. Pope

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided January 10, 1928No. [No. 38, October Term, 1927.]PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtParke, J.

The appellees, William P. Pope and Milton L. Pope, and one Arthur H. Parker, were partners under the firm name of Parker & Pope, and conducted a garage, which was known as “The Palace Garage,” upon an improved lot of land in which Arthur H. Parker held an undivided one-half interest and the other undivided one-half interest was owned by the said William P. Pope and Laura E. Pope, his wife, as ten ants by the entireties. Another portion of the premises was under lease to a third party who carried on a lunch room called the “Busy Bee Lunch Boom.” The property was subject to an outstanding…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Gluck v. Mayor of BaltimoreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1895
  2. Hogan v. McMahonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1911
  3. Israel v. IsraelCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1869
  4. Bonaparte v. ThayerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1902
  5. Smith v. State Ex Rel. WalshCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1901

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Bocchini v. Gorn Management Co.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1986
  2. Colburn v. ColburnCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1972
  3. Young v. YoungCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1977
  4. Aiello v. AielloCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1973
  5. Withers v. DouglasCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1971

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API