Brown v. Ellicott
Court of Appeals of Maryland
This is an appeal from Baltimore county court in an action •of assumpsit, brought by the appellees. The declaration claimed of the defendant $121.68, for wharf-age on two hundred and fifty-one barrels of ore, furnished by the Ellicotts to the defendant. It also contained other counts, for work and labor, and materials, and for the use and occupation of rooms in a dwelling house of the Ellicotts, matters properly chargeable in account, money counts, and insimul computassent.
Read the full summary
This is an appeal from Baltimore county court in an action •of assumpsit, brought by the appellees. The declaration claimed of the defendant $121.68, for wharf-age on two hundred and fifty-one barrels of ore, furnished by the Ellicotts to the defendant. It also contained other counts, for work and labor, and materials, and for the use and occupation of rooms in a dwelling house of the Ellicotts, matters properly chargeable in account, money counts, and insimul computassent. Plea, non assumpsit. Verdict for the plaintiff, and the record contains a single exception, which presents the question…
1Opinion of the Court
Le Giiaxd, C. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.-
We discover no error in the refusal of the-county court to grant the instruction asked by the defendant.
The hypothesis of the prayer was, that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover for wharfage, because, the wharf alluded to in the proof was a public wharf, and yet it look the fact, whether it was a public wharf, from the finding of the jury.
*82We do- not deem it proper to intimate, whether or not the theory-of the prayer is correct, it being clearly defective- in the particular to whieh we-have referred. Reagan vs. Gaither, 11 Gill and…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Burtles v. State ex rel. TurnerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1853
- Okisko Co. v. MatthewsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1852
- Steuart v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1853