Castelberg v. Hamburger
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City. (Staxtox, J.) The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the CourtUrner, J.
If this appeal could be entertained, the judgment would be affirmed, as the rulings of the trial Court are free of error, but it is our plain duty to grant the motion of the appellee to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the record was not transmitted to this Court within the time prescribed by law.
Tlxe appeal was entered on October 10th, 1937, and the period of three months allowed for the transmission of the record to this -Court expired on January 10th, 1918. It was ixot until January 12th, 1918, that the record was in .fact transmitted. The transcript of the record was completed and…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Maryland, Delaware & Virginia Railway Co. v. HammondCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1909
- Steiner v. HardingCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1898
- Willis v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1882
- Horseman v. FurbushCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1915
- Warburton v. RobinsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1910
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Brill v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1923
- Marx v. ReineckeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1923
- Uhler v. Real Properties, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1980
- Brinsfield v. MatherCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1934
- Mears v. Bruce, Inc.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1978