Leitch v. Owings
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court. Exception: The Superior Court gave the following instruction to the jury: That by the true construction of the Act of 1868, chapter 173, the goods of a boarder or sojourner in a boarding house, which are, by that Act, protected from distress, are the goods of such boarder, belonging to him and in his own personal use, and not the furniture or other goods in the…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court. Exception: The Superior Court gave the following instruction to the jury: That by the true construction of the Act of 1868, chapter 173, the goods of a boarder or sojourner in a boarding house, which are, by that Act, protected from distress, are the goods of such boarder, belonging to him and in his own personal use, and not the furniture or other goods in the common use of the other boarders; and if the jury shall find from the evidence that the goods distrained upon constituted…
1Opinion of the CourtRobinson, J.
This was an action of replevin instituted by the appellant against the appellee, who avowed the taking of the goods for rent in arrear for certain premises demised by him to one Matilda Leitch.
From the evidence, it appears that the tenant, Matilda Leitch, kept a boarding house on the premises, and by a bill of sale duly executed and recorded, conveyed the goods taken under the distress warrant, to the appellant, her son, who, together with his family, boarded with her. The goods however seized under the distress, consisted of furniture in general use by the whole household, and not the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Ehrman v. LymanBaltimore City Court · 1889