Legal Opinion
Mitchell v. Houstle
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided June 13, 1958No. [No. 254, September Term, 1957.]PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPrescott, J.
The chancellor decreed that the appellants must cease using a certain sewer pipe that runs under the land of the appellees from the appellants’ lot to the public sewer. The appellants and appellees are the owners of contiguous lots in Baltimore City that are bounded on the north by Sulgrave Avenue; on the east by Lochlea Road; and on the south by South Road. South Road and Sulgrave Avenue are parallel streets. The appellees’ lot (unimproved) lies north of the appellants’ lot (improved by a dwelling), and has frontage on both Sulgrave Avenue and Lochlea Road; the appellants’ parcel lies…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Dale v. BedalMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
- Slear v. JankiewiczCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1947
- President of the Middletown Bank v. RussSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1819
- Kelly v. NagleCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1926
- Ricci v. NaplesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- State v. FickerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1972
- Loiselle v. COSAS MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLCCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2010
- Chevy Chase Land Co. of Montgomery County v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1997
- Calvert Joint Venture 140 v. SniderCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
- McNorton v. Pan American Bank of OrlandoDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1980
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.