Legal Opinion

Julian Goldman Stores v. Bugg

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided November 15, 1928No. [No. 16, October Term, 1928.]PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBond, C. J.

In a suit against a principal for damages from malicious prosecution by his agent of ai non-resident attachment, with garnishment of the debtor’s wages, the trial court excluded evidence offered by the principal to show that it had denied the agent any authority to resort to litigation for it; and exceptions to that action are presented to this court on appeal. The principal maintained a retail store at Cumberland, in charge of Charles A. Brodsky as manager, and Bugg, an employee of the Baltimore and Ohio Eailroad Company, had been purchasing from the store-, and appeared on its records as…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hopkins Chemical Co. v. Read Drug & Chemical Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1914
  2. Deck v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1905
  3. Barron v. WhitesideCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1899
  4. Evans v. DavidsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1880

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Banks v. Montgomery Ward & Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1974
  2. Scott v. James Gibbons Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1949
  3. Lewis v. Accelerated Transport-Pony Express, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1959
  4. Fowser Fast Freight v. SimmontCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1951
  5. Carroll v. Hillendale Golf Club, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1929

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

Powered by the Exa API