Legal Opinion

Hodgson v. Phippin

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided May 1, 1930No. [No. 40, January Term, 1930.]PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Bond, O. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The principal question is that of the meaning and effect of a tender and payment into court of part of an amount sued for, “in full satisfaction of the plaintiff’s demand.” Did those words constitute merely a statement of the defendant’s contention that this was the full amount due, and leave the plaintiffs free to withdraw the amount without affecting the remainder of their demand, or did the words., on the contrary, impose a condition that the amount tendered and paid in be accepted and withdrawn only in satisfaction of the whole demand? A…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Scheffenacker v. HoopesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1910
  2. Palatine Insurance v. O'BrienCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1908
  3. Truett v. LeggCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1870
  4. Gamble v. SentmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1887
  5. Palatine Insurance v. O'BrienCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1908

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Baltimore Luggage Co. v. LigonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1955
  2. Loh v. Safeway Stores, Inc.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1980
  3. Cook v. ToneyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1966
  4. ARONSON & COMPANY v. FetridgeCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2008
  5. Medical Mutual Liability Insurance Society of Maryland v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001

4 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