Legal Opinion

Corcoran v. Abstract & Title Co.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided August 15, 1958No. [No. 289, September Term, 1957.]PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHenderson, J.

The appellants agreed to purchase from George O. King and Esther J. King, his wife, a parcel of land in Riverdale Park, Prince George’s County, and employed the appellee to examine the title for them. In due course a certificate of title was executed and delivered to the appellants by the title company. It certified that “the title to the above described real estate is considered good in fee simple”, with certain exceptions not here material. It further stated: “This certificate does not cover mechanics’ liens not recorded at the date hereof, nor unrecorded deeds, adverse claims and…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Savings Bank v. WardSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
  2. Russell & Co. v. Polk County Abstract Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1893
  3. J. H. Trisdale, Inc. v. Shasta County Title Co.California Court of Appeal · 1956
  4. Watson v. Calvert Building & Loan Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1900
  5. Bridgeport Airport, Inc. v. Title Guaranty & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1930

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Williams v. PolgarMichigan Supreme Court · 1974
  2. 100 Investment Ltd. Partnership v. Columbia Town Center Title Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2013
  3. Mumford v. Staton, Whaley & PriceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1969
  4. Stone v. Chicago Title InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1993
  5. Canatella v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1972

6 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