Weber v. Fickey
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. First Exception.—Stated in the opinion of the Court. Second Exception.—Stated in the Court’s opinion, except that the rule of the Superior Court on which the decision -of this exception is based, is not there stated.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. First Exception.—Stated in the opinion of the Court. Second Exception.—Stated in the Court’s opinion, except that the rule of the Superior Court on which the decision -of this exception is based, is not there stated. Said rule is as follows: 14. “If the declaration shall not disclose the particulars of the plaintiff’s demand, the defendant at any time before the cause shall have been entered on the trial ■docket, or afterwards with leave of Court, may enter on the docket a demand of particulars…
1Opinion of the CourtGrason, J.
This cause was argued and decided at April Term, 1878, and upon motion of the appellee was ordered to be. re-argued on notes, and the case has been again carefully considered. The suit was instituted by the appellee, a stockholder and creditor of the Baltimore County Marble Company of Baltimore County, against the appellant, also a stockholder in the same company, for the recovery, under sec. 52 of Art. 26 of the Code, of the amount of a judgment, which the appellee had recovered against the corporation in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. The declaration, as originally filed, contained…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Smith v. SheeleySupreme Court of the United States · 1871
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hooper v. Central Trust Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1895
- Larkin v. MacLellanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1922
- Davey v. MasserCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1954
- Southern Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. YeatmanU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1904