Legal Opinion

Ledingham v. Bayless

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided September 22, 2001No. [No. 22, September Term, 1958.]PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHammond, J.

Over the attack of the other two children, who are appellants here, the chancellor held valid and effective, as a contract to devise, a written agreement between George E. S. Bayless, Jr., the appellee (usually called “Buddy”), and his parents, that if he would work the farm owned and lived on by the parents, at the death of the survivor he would “be considered the legal owner of one-half undivided interest in the Fairfield Farm.”

Mr. and Mrs. George E. S. Bayless, the parents, acquired a two hundred acre farm in Howard County in 1926 as tenants by the entirety. Mr. Bayless farmed the place…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Ga Nun v. . PalmerNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
  2. Attorney Grievance Commission v. CoppolaCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2011
  3. Burdine v. Burdine's Ex'orSupreme Court of Virginia · 1900
  4. Teske v. DittbernerNebraska Supreme Court · 1903
  5. Phalen v. . United States Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1906

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Schoolfield v. CollinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  2. Westpark, Inc. v. Seaton Land Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1961
  3. Stevens v. BennettCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1964
  4. Shimp v. ShimpCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1980
  5. Wells v. DickensSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968

9 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