Legal Opinion
King v. Kaiser
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided May 5, 1915PublishedCited by 29 opinions
Appeal from Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City. (Ambler, J.) The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the CourtStockbrtdge, J.
The question presented by the record in this case is the right of the appellees to the specific performance of an agreement for renewal, contained in a léase from the predecessor in title of the present appellant, to the appellees, eleven in number. Tbe paper out of which the controversy arises is as follows:
“Baltimore, Md., April 30th, 1908.
“This Lease, Made this 30th day of April, one thousand nine hundred and eight, by Louis Sinsheimer, of Baltimore City, as party of the first part,-and Ernest Kaiser, Henry Harman, William Kerner, Louis Hugel, Henry Hugel, Thomas Little, William Hugel,…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Cooke v. Baltimore Traction Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1895
- Neal v. JeffersonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
- Gelston v. SigmundCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1867
- Banks v. HaskieCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1876
- Kollock v. ScribnerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Soehnlein v. PumphreyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1944
- Schultz v. KaplanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1947
- Hanlon v. LevinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1935
- Saul v. McIntyreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1948
- Louis K. Liggett Co. v. RoseCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1927
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.