Legal Opinion

Tidewater Oil Co. v. Spoerer

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided February 13, 1924PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtUrner, J.

The declaration in this ease alleges that the plaintiff’s, on December 11, 1919, entered into a verbal contract with the duly authorized agents of the defendant corporation, whereby the defendant agreed to sell to the plaintiffs sixty-five carloads of oils, known as “Veedol” products, during 1920, at prices for which their expired contract in writing for a portion of the preceding year had provided, the shipments to be in monthly quantities to be designated by the plaintiffs according to the requirements of their business, and that the defendant, in violation of the agreement, has failed and…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Parks v. Griffith & Boyd Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1914
  2. Wheeling Steel & Iron Co. v. EvansCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1903
  3. Wills v. CarpenterCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1891
  4. Bernstein v. MerkelCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1915
  5. Parks v. Griffith & Boyd Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1912

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Scarlett v. YoungCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1936
  2. Atkinson Warehousing & Distribution, Inc. v. Ecolab, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 2000
  3. Woodcock v. PopeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1928
  4. Arthur Treacher's Fish & Chips of Fairfax, Inc. v. Chillum Terrace Ltd. PartnershipCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1975

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API