Legal Opinion

Mullen v. Sanborn

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided June 20, 1894PublishedCited by 45 opinions

Appeal from the Baltimore City Court. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.

1Opinion of the CourtFowler, J.

Edward P. Sanborn and Arthur C. Mann, trading as Sanborn & Mann, residing and doing business in Massachusetts, issued out of the Baltimore City Court an attachment on original process against Joseph Mullen, a citizen ■of this State and a resident of Baltimore city. This attachment was subsequently quashed, and the short note case was prosecuted, but without success. Sanborn, one of the plaintiffs in the attachment suit, was advised by his counsel here that it would be necessary for him to testify as a witness at the trial of the short note case, and it is admitted he came here for that…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. McLuckie v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1888
  2. Bolgiano v. Gilbert Lock Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1890

3Cited by45 opinions

  1. State v. Pennsylvania Steel Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1914
  2. Mertens v. McMahonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1933
  3. Rizo v. BurruelArizona Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Murray v. WilcoxSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
  5. Long v. HawkenCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1911

40 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