Cromwell v. Willis & Homer
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas (Harlan, C. J.) The Act of 1888 is a statute conferring or extending jurisdiction, and should, therefore, according to established principles, receives a strict construction.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas (Harlan, C. J.) The Act of 1888 is a statute conferring or extending jurisdiction, and should, therefore, according to established principles, receives a strict construction. For, although by the common law of England, in the Courts of Westminster Hall, whose territorial jurisdiction was co-extensive with the realm, the defendant’s place of residence was not material, yet this rule, if, indeed, it ever applied to county Courts, either in England or in Maryland, was at any rate abrogated here in very early colonial times. For, as early as 1728, it was…
1Opinion of the CourtBriscoe, J.
The record in this case contains three appeals from the Court of Common Pleas of Baltimore City, but the principal question on each appeal involves a construction of that part of sec. 132, of Art. 75, of the Code which provides “that any person who resides in one county, but carries on any regular business or habitually engages in any avocation or employment in another county, may be sued in either county.”
The question arose in this way. On the 7th of January, 1902, Messrs. George R. Willis and Francis T. Homer, of Baltimore City, law partners, doing business under the firm name of Willis &…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Tyler v. MurrayCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1882
- Chappell v. LaceyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1893
3Cited by2 opinions
- Bank of Baltimore v. SteeleCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1923
- Davidson Transfer & Storage Co. v. ChristianCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1951