County Commissioners v. Beulah
Court of Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the CourtBond, C. J.
The appellee in this case has moved that the appeal be dismissed because of the appellants’ failure to submit their bill of exceptions to the court, and have it signed, within the time allowed by law. It appears, from affidavits filed in reply to the motion, that the delay beyond the proper time was caused by failure of appellee’s counsel to return the bill after it had been submitted to them, in good time, for their examination. They mislaid it, each felt assured that it was at the office of the other, and it was not found by either until the day on which it was signed. This being the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Hopper, McGaw & Co. v. KellyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1924
- Stiegler v. Eureka Life InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1925
- Baltimore City Passenger Railway Co. v. McDonnell ex rel. McDonnellCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1876
- United Railways & Electric Co. v. CarnealCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1909
- Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. StumpfCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1903
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- State, Use of Taylor v. BarllyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1958
- B. P. Oil Corp. v. MabeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1977
- York Ice MacHinery Corp. v. SachsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1934
- County Commissioners v. LoveCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1938
- Potomac Edison Co. v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1935
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.