General

CARROLL BRICK CO. VS. JAMES H. GABLE ET AL.

1 Balt. C. Rep. 261·Baltimore City Circuit Court·1892·MD

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

CIRCUIT COURT OF BALTIMORE CITY Filed June 10, 1892. CARROLL BRICK CO. VS. JAMES H. GABLE ET AL. E. J. Earlier and ~Wm. A. Hammond for plaintiff. J. H. G-alile, E. N. Rich, Harry M. Benzinger, Moses Sormehill, TV. B. Trundle, E. O. SMngluff and G. S. Sauerland for defendants. [MAJORITY — DENNIS, J.] DENNIS, J. In this case, I am of the opinion: 1st. That the plaintiffs are estopped from claiming a lien upon the reversion. 2d. That they are entitled to claim a lien upon the leasehold, because Stirling must be considered as agent of Gable, and they are not bound by the unrecorded declaration of trust in favor of Mrs. Gable. I will sign a decree therefore for the sale of the leasehold interest, unless the amount of the lien claim is paid into Court by a day to be fixed by the decree.