Meixel v. Carr
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas: This was an action instituted by the appellee against the appellants on the 5th of September, 1863. The declaration alleged: “That William Carr, trading under the name and firm of William Carr & Co., sues Joseph H. Meixel and McHenry Grafton, co-partners, trading under the name and firm of Meixel and Grafton, for that the defendants converted to tlioir own use, or wrongfully deprived tlio plaintiff of the uso and possession of tlie…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas: This was an action instituted by the appellee against the appellants on the 5th of September, 1863. The declaration alleged: “That William Carr, trading under the name and firm of William Carr & Co., sues Joseph H. Meixel and McHenry Grafton, co-partners, trading under the name and firm of Meixel and Grafton, for that the defendants converted to tlioir own use, or wrongfully deprived tlio plaintiff of the uso and possession of tlie plaintiffs’s goods, that is to say, four barrels of whiskey; and the plaintiff claims therefor $500. The defendants pleaded…
1Opinion of the CourtCochran, J.
The count in the declaration on which the appellants moved to arrest the judgment is, “that the defendants converted to their use, or wrongfully deprived the plaintiff of, the plaintiff’s goods, that is to say,‘ four barrels of whiskey, &c.,” and, as the injury complained of is laid in the alternative, the motion asserts that the account is not sufficient to sustain a judgment on the verdict.
The point thus presented differs very materially from the one decided in Sterling vs. Garritee, 18 Md. Rep., 468.— There, the plaintiff claimed a return of the property of which he had boon deprived, or…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Stirling v. GarriteeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1862
3Cited by1 opinion
- McDonald v. MangoldMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895