Legal Opinion

Carozza v. Williams

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided March 17, 1948No. [No. 103, October Term, 1947.]PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMarkell, J.

This is an appeal by plaintiffs from a judgment for them for $2,391.96, admitted by defendants to be due, in an action to recover $5,400 claimed by plaintiffs under a contract for the sale of dirt or “borrow” by plaintiffs to defendants. The case was tried without a jury.

By a contract dated April 24, 1942, plaintiffs agreed to sell to defendants dirt or “borrow” from a certain hill, to be dug and removed by defendants within eighty-two days, and defendants agreed within that period to dig and remove at least 90,000 cubic yards, in such a manner that the hill should be “left substantially…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. McBriety v. PhillipsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1942
  2. Reynolds v. Manning, Stimpson & Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1860

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Knudsen v. Duffee-Freeman, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1957
  2. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. ZapfCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1949
  3. Mayor of Baltimore v. Industrial Electronics, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1962
  4. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Federal Power CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1977
  5. Garfinkel v. SchwartzmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1969

7 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