Legal Opinion

COWAL, TRADING AS GIBRALTAR REALTY CO. v. Marletta

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided March 28, 1958No. [No. 184, September Term, 1957.]PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCarter, J.

The Circuit Court for Prince George’s County set aside the verdict of a jury in favor of the appellant (broker) for $670 commissions and granted the motion of the appellee (owner) for a judgment n.o.v. under Maryland Rule 563 b 1. While the record is silent on the subject, the apparent basis for the trial court’s action was that there was no legally sufficient evidence from which the jury could have found that the broker’s efforts were the procuring cause of the sale. This appeal questions the correctness of that ruling and requires a review of the evidence.

The following facts are undisputed.…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Keener v. HarrodCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1852
  2. Blake v. StumpCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1890
  3. Jones v. AdlerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1871
  4. State Ex Rel. Parr v. Board of County CommissionersCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1955
  5. Schwartze v. YearlyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1869

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Damazo v. WahbyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1970
  2. Leimbach v. NicholsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1959
  3. Sanders v. DevereuxCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1963
  4. Weinberg v. DesserCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1966
  5. Atlantic Richfield Co. v. SybertCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1982

8 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