Legal Opinion

Frush v. Brooks

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided April 26, 1954No. [No. 111, October Term, 1953.]PublishedCited by 51 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHammond, J.

The decision in this appeal depends on the meaning and effect of the summary judgment provisions of the General Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The appellee, plaintiff below, sold the appellant, defendant below, a house scow, and as part of the purchase price accepted her promissory note. Not only was the note not paid but an additional indebtedness accrued for wharfage. Appellee filed suit to recover the balance due. Filed with the declaration was a motion for summary judgment, with supporting affidavit and notice to the defendant to plead, as required by the rules. The appellant filed the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Engl v. ætna Life Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
  2. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
  3. Dewey v. ClarkCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1950
  4. General Investment Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1923
  5. Schreffler v. BowlesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1946

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

3Cited by51 opinions

  1. Hunt v. Montgomery CountyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1968
  2. Metropolitan Mortgage Fund, Inc. v. BasilikoCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1980
  3. Strickler Engineering Corp. v. Seminar, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1956
  4. White v. FrielCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1956
  5. Pittman v. Atlantic Realty Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2000

46 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