Oelrichs v. Artz
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appear from the Superior Court of Baltimore City : This action was "brought in the Superior Court of Baltimore City, by the appellees, co-partners, under the firm of D. Artz & Bon, against the appellants, co-partners, trading under the firm of Oelrichs & Lurman, for a violation of the following contract: “Barto., Nov. 24ih, 1855. For and in consideration oftho sum of one dollar, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, wo have ibis day purchased and agreed to receive from…
Read the full summary
Appear from the Superior Court of Baltimore City : This action was "brought in the Superior Court of Baltimore City, by the appellees, co-partners, under the firm of D. Artz & Bon, against the appellants, co-partners, trading under the firm of Oelrichs & Lurman, for a violation of the following contract: “Barto., Nov. 24ih, 1855. For and in consideration oftho sum of one dollar, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, wo have ibis day purchased and agreed to receive from John W. Bell, two thousand barrels How. St. or Ohio superfine Hour, at his option, in all January 1856, deliverable in…
1Opinion of the CourtBartol, J.
This case was argued in connection with the case of Oelrichs & Lurman vs. Ford, and involves some of the same questions decided in the other case.
At the trial six bills of exceptions were taken by the apappellants, who were defendants below. Of these, the first, third, fourth and fifth, present the same points as the first, second, third and fourth exceptions in Ford’s case, and for the reasons stated in the opinion therein filed, the rulings of the Superior Court on these exceptions will be affirmed.
The second exception. The tender of 500 barrels of flour in pursuance of the contract in this…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Schloss v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1957
- Smith v. CrichtonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1870