Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Boyd
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeals from the Baltimore City Court. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. Plaintiffs’ First Exception is stated in the opinion of the Court. ’ Plaintiffs’ Second Exception is to the granting of the defendant’s first and second prayers, which are set forth in the defendant’s third exception. Defendant’s First and Second, Exceptions are not reviewed hy the Court.
Read the full summary
Appeals from the Baltimore City Court. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. Plaintiffs’ First Exception is stated in the opinion of the Court. ’ Plaintiffs’ Second Exception is to the granting of the defendant’s first and second prayers, which are set forth in the defendant’s third exception. Defendant’s First and Second, Exceptions are not reviewed hy the Court. Defendant’s Third Exception. — At the trial the plaintiffs offered the three prayers following: 1. If the jury shall find the execution of the various deeds and wills, of which certified copies have been offered in…
1Opinion of the CourtAlvey, C. J.
The record now before us contains four appeals; three by the defendant from three several judgments against it, and one by the plaintiffs from one of those judgments.
There were three several actions of trespass guare clausum fregit brought hy the plaintiffs below against the defendant, the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, and by agreement, the three actions were tried together, hut a separate verdict was rendered in each case, and, consequently, separate judgments were entered.
The first of these cases was here on a former appeal, and is reported in 63 Md., 325. The facts of that case are…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Bell v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1881
- Blesch v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1877
- City of Chicago v. HuenerbeinIllinois Supreme Court · 1877
- Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. BoydCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1885
- Carl v. Sheboygan & Fond du Lac RailroadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1879
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- Midgett v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1981
- Nelson v. SeilerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1927
- Siegman v. Equitable Trust Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1973
- Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. MackenzieCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1891
- Mills v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1971
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.