satisfactory test in Maryland

1979The decisions do not furnish a satisfactory test, as they are conflicting in their reasoning and conclusions. [Baltimore v. Eagers, 167 Md. 128, 136 , 173 A. 56 (1934).] This observation led to our statement in Baltimore v. State, ex rel.

1979The decisions do not furnish a satisfactory test, as they are conflicting in their reasoning and conclusions. [Baltimore v. Eagers, 167 Md. 128, 136 , 173 A. 56 (1934).] This observation led to our statement in Baltimore v. State, ex rel.

1979Ahrens, 168 Md. 619 , 179 A. 169 (1935), hereafter referred to as Ahrens, that the line of demarcation between private, corporate, and ministerial, and governmental, political, and discretionary activities or functions of municipalities is difficult to discern, and more difficult to define. [Id. at 625.] We have noted that “[t]he distinction between governmental and proprietary functions is sometimes illusory in practice.” E.

1979Ahrens, 168 Md. 619 , 179 A. 169 (1935), hereafter referred to as Ahrens, that the line of demarcation between private, corporate, and ministerial, and governmental, political, and discretionary activities or functions of municipalities is difficult to discern, and more difficult to define. [Id. at 625.] We have noted that “[t]he distinction between governmental and proprietary functions is sometimes illusory in practice.” E.

1915The only case we have found sustaining a claim against the principal for the hire of vehicles used by the agent in making sales is that of Bentley v. Doggett, 51 Wis. 224 , but the theory of the ruling in that ease does not commend itself to our judgment as being a satisfactory principle for general application, and we are convinced that it is not appropriate to the very different state of facts presented in the ease at bar.

1893Booth, supra. The appellant, after obtaining possession of the goods in controversy, assumed dominion over them, and re fused to surrender them to the appellee which is a satisfactory test of the conversion.

1880Coyle, 34 Md., 235 , this Court has laid down in explicit terms what seems to us the most satisfactory rule or test, by which the liability of unpaid bailees is to be determined, namely, that he is bound to observe such care in the custody of property committed to bis keeping, as persons of ordinary prudence in his situation and business, usually bestow in the custody and keeping of like property belonging to themselves.