Legal Opinion

Doughty v. Bayne

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided May 12, 1960No. [No. 201, September Term, 1959.]PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrune, C. J.

The question here is whether or not certain statements made by the defendant-appellant, John E. Doughty, were sufficient to permit a jury to find that he had acknowledged a debt which otherwise would have been barred by the Statute of Eimitations. The plaintiff-appellee, Clarence E. Bayne, brought suit in the Circuit Court ffor Worcester County upon a note allegedly made by Doughty. The case was removed for trial to Somerset County, where a jury found for Bayne. A motion for judgment n. o. v. or for a new trial was denied, judgment was entered for Bayne upon the jury’s verdict, and Doughty…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Oliver v. GrayCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1827
  2. Ellicott v. NicholsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1848
  3. Mitchell v. SellmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1853
  4. Weil v. LambertCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1944
  5. Owings v. DayhoffCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1930

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Mayor of Federalsburg v. Allied Contractors, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1975
  2. Mettee v. BooneCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1968
  3. Jenkins v. KarltonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1993
  4. Hall v. BarlowCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1971
  5. United States v. Howard S. CulverCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1992

6 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