Slingluff v. Andrew Volk Builders' Supply Co.
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Baltimore City Court (Dennis, J.) At the trial the plaintiff’s first prayer was as follows: If the Court, sitting as a jury, shall find the plaintiff made the written proposal to the defendant offered in evidence, in the following words : For value received, .we, the undersigned, hereby agree to accept ninety (90%) per cent, of our respective claims v. Clarence F. Gettier, trading as “John L. Gettier and Son,” in full satisfaction and settlement thereof, '…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Baltimore City Court (Dennis, J.) At the trial the plaintiff’s first prayer was as follows: If the Court, sitting as a jury, shall find the plaintiff made the written proposal to the defendant offered in evidence, in the following words : For value received, .we, the undersigned, hereby agree to accept ninety (90%) per cent, of our respective claims v. Clarence F. Gettier, trading as “John L. Gettier and Son,” in full satisfaction and settlement thereof, ' payment to be made upon completion of the three (3) houses on Walbrook avenue, and to be guaranteed by Horace Slingluff;…
1Opinion of the CourtSchmucker, J.
The appellees, as plaintiffs in the Court below, sued the appellant upon his written undertaking to guarantee the payment of a then existing indebtedness to them by one Clarence F. Gettier. There is but one count in the declaration and that sets out at length the terms of the guaranty and avers that the appellant refused to pay the debt the payment of which he had guaranteed.
The guaranty appeared upon a paper signed by a number of persons and firms, including the appellee, which set forth that the signers agreed to accept 90 per cent, of their respective claims against Gettier in full…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Thomas Roberts & Co. v. BonaparteCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1890
- Lazear v. National Union BankCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1880
- Moale v. BuchananCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1840
- Sentman v. GambleCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1888
- Frank v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1873
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Dick v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1907
- Armour & Co. v. LeasureCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1939
- Sherman v. SweenyWashington Supreme Court · 1902
- Struth v. DeckerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1905
- Chesapeake Brewing Co. v. GoldbergCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1908
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.