Legal Opinion

State, Use of Smith v. Turner

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided June 23, 1905PublishedCited by 21 opinions

Appeal from the Baltimore City Court.

1Opinion of the CourtPearce, J.

This is an action brought in the name of the State for the use of William Smith, a deputy in the office of Barreda Turner, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, upon the official bond of said Turner to recover for services rendered by Smith as such deputy, in the performance of the duties of the office. The United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company is the surety upon said bond, the condition of which is as follows: “If the above bounded Barreda Turner, whilst he shall continue in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, shall faithfully perform all the duties…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Archer v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1891
  2. Weisenborn v. PeopleAppellate Court of Illinois · 1894
  3. Crocker v. FalesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
  4. State ex rel. County Commissioners v. HillCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1898
  5. State v. CarrickCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1889

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Aetna Indemnity, Co. v. John WatersCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1909
  2. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. W. & J. Knox Net & Twine Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1926
  3. Hospital for Women Ex Rel. Green v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1940
  4. American Fidelity Co. v. State Ex Rel. Short & Walls Lumber Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1916
  5. Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Mattingly Lumber Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1939

16 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