Legal Opinion
Warfield v. Baltimore Gas & Electric Co.
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided July 28, 1986No. 148, September Term, 1985PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SMITH, Judge.
We shall hold in this case that the inclusion of the word “seal” in a pre-printed form executed by an individual is sufficient to make the instrument one under seal.
In 1979 appellant, Barbara L. Warfield, executed a guaranty to appellee, Baltimore Gas & Electric Company (BG & E). It was on a regular form of the company. “(SEAL)” was printed at the end of each of the prepared lines on the form and appears after the signature of Warfield. The instrument does not recite that it is under seal.
On February 11, 1985, BG & E brought suit on the guaranty for services rendered up through…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Mayor of Federalsburg v. Allied Contractors, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1975
- Matter of PirieNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
- Wells v. Alropa CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1936
- Gildenhorn v. Columbia Real Estate Title InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1974
- Trasher v. EverhartCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1831
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Pacific Mortgage and Investment Group, Ltd. v. HornCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1994
- Gregory Smith v. Wakefield, LPCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2019
- Crowder v. Master Financial, Inc.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2007
- Wellington Co. v. ShakibaCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2008
- Allied Funding v. HuemmerCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1993
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.