Legal Opinion

Hyattsville v. W., W. G.R.R. Co.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided February 25, 1914PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

This case was before us several terms ago and the conclusions then reached by us are reported in 120 Md. 128. The question which then gave us most difficulty was whether the termini were sufficiently described to comply with our statute. After considering the various points presented, we said: "In our judgment, then, the general railroad law of this State requires the termini to be fixed in this State, and naming two cities out of the State as the termini would not ordinarily be sufficient to show a compliance with the statute in that respect. But we are also of the opinion, as indicated and…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. New Central Coal Co. v. George's Creek Coal & Iron Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1873
  2. Piedmont & Cumberland Railway Co. v. SpeelmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1887
  3. Glymont Improvement & Excursion Co. v. TolerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1894
  4. Union Railroad v. Canton RailroadCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1907
  5. City & Suburban R. R. v. Washington, Westminster & Gettysburg R. R.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1913

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Bouton v. Potomac Edison Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1980
  2. Grangeville Highway District v. AilshieIdaho Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Chesapeake & Curtis Bay Railroad v. TowersBaltimore City Circuit Court · 1916
  4. Seabrook v. Carolina Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1930

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API