Heinekamp v. Beaty
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. Exception. — At the trial the plaintiffs offered the two prayers following: 1. If the jury believe from the evidence that damages were sustained by reason of the act of the defendants in taking and removing the organ in question, they are not restricted in estimating the extent of the same to such a sum as will compensate the plaintiff for her mere pecuniary loss, but they may take into…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. Exception. — At the trial the plaintiffs offered the two prayers following: 1. If the jury believe from the evidence that damages were sustained by reason of the act of the defendants in taking and removing the organ in question, they are not restricted in estimating the extent of the same to such a sum as will compensate the plaintiff for her mere pecuniary loss, but they may take into account all the circumstances connected with the defendants' conduct in the premises, and if they believe from the…
1Opinion of the CourtBryan, J.
Beaty and wife brought suit against Heinekamp and Son. On the twenty-third day of September, 1889, the defendants laid a “rule security for costs” on the ground that the plaintiffs were non-residents; and on the thirtieth day of September, 1890, the defendants moved for judgment of non pros, under the rule. On the second day of October the amount of the costs was deposited in Court, and the motion for non pros, was overruled. ■ It is obvious that the defendants obtained the full benefit of the rule requiring the plaintiffs to give security for costs. Although the statute says that the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Burt v. PlaceNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Wanzer v. BrightIllinois Supreme Court · 1869
- Manning v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1878
- Spencer v. TraffordCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1875
- State ex rel. Wilson v. McCartyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1883
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Nichols v. MeyerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1921
- Catanzara Di Giorgio Co. v. F. W. Stock & SonsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1911
- Wallander v. BarnesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1996
- Holt v. Tennallytown & Rockville RailroadCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1895
- Wilkin Manufacturing Co. v. MelvinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1911
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.