Wear v. Skinner
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court. Exception. — At the trial the plaintiff offered the three following prayers: 1. The plaintiff prays the Court to instruct the jury, that if they find from the evidence, that the plaintiff, Wear, and the defendant, Skinner, were members of the firm of Skinner, Neale & Co., and that the said Wear was not an active member of said firm, but that its business was…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court. Exception. — At the trial the plaintiff offered the three following prayers: 1. The plaintiff prays the Court to instruct the jury, that if they find from the evidence, that the plaintiff, Wear, and the defendant, Skinner, were members of the firm of Skinner, Neale & Co., and that the said Wear was not an active member of said firm, but that its business was conducted by said Skinner and Irvin Neale; and if they shall further find, that while said firm was so conducting its business,…
1Opinion of the CourtRobinson, J.
This is an action for deceit brought by the appellant against the appellee, to recover damages for an alleged fraud, by which the former was induced to assign to the latter, his interest in the firm of Skinner, Neale & Co., of which they had both been members
The defendant pleaded non cul, and the Statute of Limitations.. Issue was joined on the plea of not guilty, and to the plea of the Statute, the plaintiff replied:
*264“That he was kept in ignorance by the fraud of the defendant for a long time of the cause of action, which he bad against the defendant, and that he brought his action within…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- First Massachusetts Turnpike Corp. v. FieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
- Sherwood v. SuttonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Hampshire · 1828
- Rush v. BarrSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1832
- Harrisburg Bank v. ForsterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839
- Franklin v. WatersCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1849
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Pennwalt Corp. v. NasiosCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1988
- O'HARA v. KovensCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1986
- Geisz v. Greater Baltimore Medical CenterCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1988
- Bowlin Horn v. Citizens Hosp.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1982
- Piper v. JenkinsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1955
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.