Dickinson v. Mayor of Baltimore
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. First Exception. —At the trial the defendant offered in evidence a deed dated October 5th, 1876, (subsequent to the commencement of the action,) by which the plaintiff conveyed to the defendant her interest in the property, in respect to which the action was brought. To the admission of this deed the plaintiff objected.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. First Exception. —At the trial the defendant offered in evidence a deed dated October 5th, 1876, (subsequent to the commencement of the action,) by which the plaintiff conveyed to the defendant her interest in the property, in respect to which the action was brought. To the admission of this deed the plaintiff objected. The Court (Dobbin, J.,) overruled the objection and permitted the deed to be read to the jury. The plaintiff excepted. Second Exception. — The plaintiff offered the following…
1Opinion of the CourtStewart, J.
The appellant had leased to the appellee or its agent, a certain store or cellar, in the City of Baltimore, for the term of three years ; the term had expired and the property was surrendered to her.
Waste thereon, or injury thereto, being alleged to have been committed by the appellee during the tenancy, this action was brought for the recovery of damages therefor..
During the pendency of the action the appellant conveyed the property to the appellee.
*588This alienation was relied upon as a sufficient defence to the action, the appellee insisting that to enable the appellant to recover, it was…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- White v. WagnerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1818
- M'Laughlin v. LongCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1820
3Cited by2 opinions
- J. B. Hill v. PinqueCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
- Carroll v. BowlingCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1926