Pullman Co. v. Ray
Court of Appeals of Maryland
1Dissent
Hammond, J.,
filed the following dissenting opinion.
In Heckler v. Balto. & Ohio R. Co., 167 Md. 226, 173 A. 2d 12, 14, this Court, in refusing effect to an alleged lifetime contract because its terms were not sufficiently definite, said this: “Holding as we do that the declaration alleges that the settlement was made by the corporation itself, we have not found it necessary to discuss the question whether a contract of employment made in settlement of a damage suit for personal injuries incurred in the service of a corporation, by an agent with apparent authority to settle the claim, is an…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Pennsylvania Co. v. DolanIndiana Court of Appeals · 1892
- Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. MurrayCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1951
- Fisher v. . Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
- General Paint Corporation v. KramerCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1932
- Fisher v. John L. Roper Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.