Jarden v. Pumphrey
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City. The facts of the case, together with the exceptions taken by the defendants, are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the CourtBartol, C. J.
The questions in this case arise upon a seire facias, on a claim of lien, filed by the appellee against the appellants.
It was proved at the trial that the appellee was employed on or about August, 1868, by a certain Edward D. Preston, a builder and contractor, for a stated sum, to paint a certain house on Barre street, mentioned in the proceedings, which Preston had contracted to build and complete by January 1st, 1869, for Amelia Jarden, wife of Samuel Jarden; that Samuel *363was the agent of his wife in the premises, and, as such agent, made the contract with Preston for building the house;…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Street Lumber Co. v. SullivanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Adkins & Douglas Co. v. WebbCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1931
- Conway v. CrookCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1886
- Rimmey v. GettermanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1885
- Western Plumbing Supply Co. v. HornAppellate Court of Illinois · 1933
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.