prima facie presumption in Maryland

2007McDermott, 385 Md. at 423 , 869 A.2d at 811 ; Monroe v. Monroe, 329 Md. 758 , 781 n. 4, 621 A.2d 898 , 909 n. 4 (1993) (quoting Ross v. Pick, 199 Md. 341, 351 , 86 A.2d 463, 468 (1952) ("Where parents claim the custody of a child, there is a prima facie presumption that the child's welfare will be best subserved in the care and custody of its parents rather than in the custody of others, and the burden is then cast upon the parties opposing them to show the contrary.")); Ross v. Hoffman, 280 Md. at 177-78 , 372 A.2d at 586-87 ; DeGrange v. Kline, 254 Md. 240, 242-43 , 254 A.2d 353, 354 (1969);

2007McDermott, 385 Md. at 423 , 869 A.2d at 811 ; Monroe v. Monroe, 329 Md. 758 , 781 n. 4, 621 A.2d 898 , 909 n. 4 (1993) (quoting Ross v. Pick, 199 Md. 341, 351 , 86 A.2d 463, 468 (1952) ("Where parents claim the custody of a child, there is a prima facie presumption that the child's welfare will be best subserved in the care and custody of its parents rather than in the custody of others, and the burden is then cast upon the parties opposing them to show the contrary.")); Ross v. Hoffman, 280 Md. at 177-78 , 372 A.2d at 586-87 ; DeGrange v. Kline, 254 Md. 240, 242-43 , 254 A.2d 353, 354 (1969);

2011In Barrie v. Abate, 209 Md. 578, 582-83 , 121 A.2d 862 (1956) (citing Stevens v. Milestone, 190 Md. 61, 65 , 57 A.2d 292 (1948); Edison Realty Co. v. Bauernschub, 191 Md. 451, 458 , 62 A.2d 354 (1948)), the Court of Appeals also stated: It is an accepted rule that a prima facie presumption arises from the acceptance of a deed that it is an execution of the entire agreement for the sale of the realty, and the rights of the parties in relation to the agreement are to be determined by the deed. “ ‘Generally, contract provisions as to title, possession, quantity or enablements of land are conclusi

2011In Barrie v. Abate, 209 Md. 578, 582-83 , 121 A.2d 862 (1956) (citing Stevens v. Milestone, 190 Md. 61, 65 , 57 A.2d 292 (1948); Edison Realty Co. v. Bauernschub, 191 Md. 451, 458 , 62 A.2d 354 (1948)), the Court of Appeals also stated: It is an accepted rule that a prima facie presumption arises from the acceptance of a deed that it is an execution of the entire agreement for the sale of the realty, and the rights of the parties in relation to the agreement are to be determined by the deed. “ ‘Generally, contract provisions as to title, possession, quantity or enablements of land are conclusi

2001Posko v. Climatic Control Corp., 198 Md. 578, 584 [, 84 A.2d 906 ]; Wanzer v. State, 202 Md. 601, 608 [, 97 A.2d 914 ]; Thomas v. Hopkins, 209 Md. 321, 327 [, 121 A.2d 192 ]; Smith v. Warden, 213 Md. 643 [, 131 A.2d *375 392].

1980Posko v. Climatic Control Corp., 198 Md. 578, 584 ; Wanzer v. State, 202 Md. 601, 608 ; Thomas v. Hopkins, 209 Md. 321, 327 ; Smith v. Warden, 213 Md. 643 .

2011In Barrie v. Abate, 209 Md. 578, 582-83 , 121 A.2d 862 (1956) (citing Stevens v. Milestone, 190 Md. 61, 65 , 57 A.2d 292 (1948); Edison Realty Co. v. Bauernschub, 191 Md. 451, 458 , 62 A.2d 354 (1948)), the Court of Appeals also stated: It is an accepted rule that a prima facie presumption arises from the acceptance of a deed that it is an execution of the entire agreement for the sale of the realty, and the rights of the parties in relation to the agreement are to be determined by the deed. “ ‘Generally, contract provisions as to title, possession, quantity or enablements of land are conclusi

2011In Barrie v. Abate, 209 Md. 578, 582-83 , 121 A.2d 862 (1956) (citing Stevens v. Milestone, 190 Md. 61, 65 , 57 A.2d 292 (1948); Edison Realty Co. v. Bauernschub, 191 Md. 451, 458 , 62 A.2d 354 (1948)), the Court of Appeals also stated: It is an accepted rule that a prima facie presumption arises from the acceptance of a deed that it is an execution of the entire agreement for the sale of the realty, and the rights of the parties in relation to the agreement are to be determined by the deed. “ ‘Generally, contract provisions as to title, possession, quantity or enablements of land are conclusi

1978The case of Heckrotte v. Riddle, 224 Md. 591, 595 , 168 A. 2d 879 (1961), relied on by RHI, is simply enunciative of a line of authority represented by Millison v. Fruehtman, [,supra]; Gilbert Construction Co. v. Gross, [supra]) Kandalis v. Paul Pet Construction Co., [supra]) Barrie v. Abate, [supra], which concludes that the acceptance of a deed gives rise to a prima facie presumption that the rights of the parties are determined by the deed.

1978The case of Heckrotte v. Riddle, 224 Md. 591, 595 , 168 A. 2d 879 (1961), relied on by RHI, is simply enunciative of a line of authority represented by Millison v. Fruehtman, [,supra]; Gilbert Construction Co. v. Gross, [supra]) Kandalis v. Paul Pet Construction Co., [supra]) Barrie v. Abate, [supra], which concludes that the acceptance of a deed gives rise to a prima facie presumption that the rights of the parties are determined by the deed.

1993In a prosecution under this Act the burden is on the accused to show that he had no intent to defraud, and the presumption may be rebutted by proof of proper facts negativing a fraudulent intent.” Id. at 124-25, 106 A.2d at 88 .

1963This presumption may be rebutted, but it is incumbent upon the accused to overcome the same and to satisfy the judge or jury (whichever is the trier of fact) that there was no actual intent to defraud, Willis v. State, 205 Md. 118 , 106 A. 2d 85 .

1984II In Murphy v. State Roads Comm’n, 159 Md. 7 , 149 A. 566 (1930), Judge Offutt said for the Court: “Ordinarily the question of whether a proposed highway is required by public necessity is legislative rather than judicial (Elliott on Roads and Streets, sec. 213; Nichols on Eminent Domain, secs. 333, 334); and while the question as to whether the proposed use is public in its nature may ultimately become a judicial one (Ibid., sec. 52; Van Witsen v. Gutman, 79 Md. 405 [ 29 A. 608 ]), when the Legislature has determined that a proposed improvement is public in its nature, the prima facie presum

1984II In Murphy v. State Roads Comm’n, 159 Md. 7 , 149 A. 566 (1930), Judge Offutt said for the Court: “Ordinarily the question of whether a proposed highway is required by public necessity is legislative rather than judicial (Elliott on Roads and Streets, sec. 213; Nichols on Eminent Domain, secs. 333, 334); and while the question as to whether the proposed use is public in its nature may ultimately become a judicial one (Ibid., sec. 52; Van Witsen v. Gutman, 79 Md. 405 [ 29 A. 608 ]), when the Legislature has determined that a proposed improvement is public in its nature, the prima facie presum

1972The case of Heckrotte v. Riddle, 224 Md. 591, 595 , 168 A. 2d 879 (1961), relied on by RHI, is simply enunciative of a line of authority represented by Millison v. Fruchtman, 214 Md. 515, 518 , 136 A. 2d 240 (1957) ; Gilbert Construction Co. v. Gross, 212 Md. 402 , 129 A. 2d 518 (1957) ; Kandalis v. Paul Pet Construction Co., 210 Md. 319 , 123 A. 2d 345 (1956) ; Barrie v. Abate, 209 Md. 578 , 121 A. 2d 862 (1956) which concludes that the acceptance of a deed gives rise to a prima facie presumption that the rights of the parties are determined by the deed.

1972The case of Heckrotte v. Riddle, 224 Md. 591, 595 , 168 A. 2d 879 (1961), relied on by RHI, is simply enunciative of a line of authority represented by Millison v. Fruchtman, 214 Md. 515, 518 , 136 A. 2d 240 (1957) ; Gilbert Construction Co. v. Gross, 212 Md. 402 , 129 A. 2d 518 (1957) ; Kandalis v. Paul Pet Construction Co., 210 Md. 319 , 123 A. 2d 345 (1956) ; Barrie v. Abate, 209 Md. 578 , 121 A. 2d 862 (1956) which concludes that the acceptance of a deed gives rise to a prima facie presumption that the rights of the parties are determined by the deed.

1972The case of Heckrotte v. Riddle, 224 Md. 591, 595 , 168 A. 2d 879 (1961), relied on by RHI, is simply enunciative of a line of authority represented by Millison v. Fruchtman, 214 Md. 515, 518 , 136 A. 2d 240 (1957) ; Gilbert Construction Co. v. Gross, 212 Md. 402 , 129 A. 2d 518 (1957) ; Kandalis v. Paul Pet Construction Co., 210 Md. 319 , 123 A. 2d 345 (1956) ; Barrie v. Abate, 209 Md. 578 , 121 A. 2d 862 (1956) which concludes that the acceptance of a deed gives rise to a prima facie presumption that the rights of the parties are determined by the deed.

1972The case of Heckrotte v. Riddle, 224 Md. 591, 595 , 168 A. 2d 879 (1961), relied on by RHI, is simply enunciative of a line of authority represented by Millison v. Fruchtman, 214 Md. 515, 518 , 136 A. 2d 240 (1957) ; Gilbert Construction Co. v. Gross, 212 Md. 402 , 129 A. 2d 518 (1957) ; Kandalis v. Paul Pet Construction Co., 210 Md. 319 , 123 A. 2d 345 (1956) ; Barrie v. Abate, 209 Md. 578 , 121 A. 2d 862 (1956) which concludes that the acceptance of a deed gives rise to a prima facie presumption that the rights of the parties are determined by the deed.

1972The case of Heckrotte v. Riddle, 224 Md. 591, 595 , 168 A. 2d 879 (1961), relied on by RHI, is simply enunciative of a line of authority represented by Millison v. Fruchtman, 214 Md. 515, 518 , 136 A. 2d 240 (1957) ; Gilbert Construction Co. v. Gross, 212 Md. 402 , 129 A. 2d 518 (1957) ; Kandalis v. Paul Pet Construction Co., 210 Md. 319 , 123 A. 2d 345 (1956) ; Barrie v. Abate, 209 Md. 578 , 121 A. 2d 862 (1956) which concludes that the acceptance of a deed gives rise to a prima facie presumption that the rights of the parties are determined by the deed.

1972The case of Heckrotte v. Riddle, 224 Md. 591, 595 , 168 A. 2d 879 (1961), relied on by RHI, is simply enunciative of a line of authority represented by Millison v. Fruchtman, 214 Md. 515, 518 , 136 A. 2d 240 (1957) ; Gilbert Construction Co. v. Gross, 212 Md. 402 , 129 A. 2d 518 (1957) ; Kandalis v. Paul Pet Construction Co., 210 Md. 319 , 123 A. 2d 345 (1956) ; Barrie v. Abate, 209 Md. 578 , 121 A. 2d 862 (1956) which concludes that the acceptance of a deed gives rise to a prima facie presumption that the rights of the parties are determined by the deed.

1946But, as said by the Supreme Court of New York, in Houghtaling v. Lewis, 10 John. 297, 299 , ‘the prima facie presumption of law, arising from the acceptance of a deed, is that it is an execution of the whole contract; and the rights and remedies of the parties, in relation to such contract, are to be determined by such deed, and the original agreement becomes null and void’.” Buckner v. Hesson, 159 Md. 461, 464 , 150 A. 852 .

1946But, as said by the Supreme Court of New York, in Houghtaling v. Lewis, 10 John. 297, 299 , ‘the prima facie presumption of law, arising from the acceptance of a deed, is that it is an execution of the whole contract; and the rights and remedies of the parties, in relation to such contract, are to be determined by such deed, and the original agreement becomes null and void’.” Buckner v. Hesson, 159 Md. 461, 464 , 150 A. 852 .

2022Id. (quoting McDermott, 385 Md. at 353 ). “‘Where parents claim the custody of a child, there is a prima facie presumption that the child’s welfare will be best subserved in the care and custody of its parents rather than in the custody of others, and the burden is then cast upon the parties opposing them to show the contrary.’” McDermott, 385 Md. at 424 (quoting Ross v. Pick, 199 Md. 341, 351 (1952)).

2022Id. (quoting McDermott, 385 Md. at 353 ). “‘Where parents claim the custody of a child, there is a prima facie presumption that the child’s welfare will be best subserved in the care and custody of its parents rather than in the custody of others, and the burden is then cast upon the parties opposing them to show the contrary.’” McDermott, 385 Md. at 424 (quoting Ross v. Pick, 199 Md. 341, 351 (1952)).

2011In Barrie v. Abate, 209 Md. 578, 582-83 , 121 A.2d 862 (1956) (citing Stevens v. Milestone, 190 Md. 61, 65 , 57 A.2d 292 (1948); Edison Realty Co. v. Bauernschub, 191 Md. 451, 458 , 62 A.2d 354 (1948)), the Court of Appeals also stated: It is an accepted rule that a prima facie presumption arises from the acceptance of a deed that it is an execution of the entire agreement for the sale of the realty, and the rights of the parties in relation to the agreement are to be determined by the deed. “ ‘Generally, contract provisions as to title, possession, quantity or enablements of land are conclusi

2011In Barrie v. Abate, 209 Md. 578, 582-83 , 121 A.2d 862 (1956) (citing Stevens v. Milestone, 190 Md. 61, 65 , 57 A.2d 292 (1948); Edison Realty Co. v. Bauernschub, 191 Md. 451, 458 , 62 A.2d 354 (1948)), the Court of Appeals also stated: It is an accepted rule that a prima facie presumption arises from the acceptance of a deed that it is an execution of the entire agreement for the sale of the realty, and the rights of the parties in relation to the agreement are to be determined by the deed. “ ‘Generally, contract provisions as to title, possession, quantity or enablements of land are conclusi

2011In Barrie v. Abate, 209 Md. 578, 582-83 , 121 A.2d 862 (1956) (citing Stevens v. Milestone, 190 Md. 61, 65 , 57 A.2d 292 (1948); Edison Realty Co. v. Bauernschub, 191 Md. 451, 458 , 62 A.2d 354 (1948)), the Court of Appeals also stated: It is an accepted rule that a prima facie presumption arises from the acceptance of a deed that it is an execution of the entire agreement for the sale of the realty, and the rights of the parties in relation to the agreement are to be determined by the deed. “ ‘Generally, contract provisions as to title, possession, quantity or enablements of land are conclusi

2011In Barrie v. Abate, 209 Md. 578, 582-83 , 121 A.2d 862 (1956) (citing Stevens v. Milestone, 190 Md. 61, 65 , 57 A.2d 292 (1948); Edison Realty Co. v. Bauernschub, 191 Md. 451, 458 , 62 A.2d 354 (1948)), the Court of Appeals also stated: It is an accepted rule that a prima facie presumption arises from the acceptance of a deed that it is an execution of the entire agreement for the sale of the realty, and the rights of the parties in relation to the agreement are to be determined by the deed. “ ‘Generally, contract provisions as to title, possession, quantity or enablements of land are conclusi

2004L.E. § 9-745(b); Martin, 353 Md. at 402 , 726 A.2d 728 ; Gleneagles, Inc. v. Hanks, 156 Md.App. 543, 550 , 847 A.2d 520 , slip op. at 7 (2004).

2004L.E. § 9-745(b); Martin, 353 Md. at 402 , 726 A.2d 728 ; Gleneagles, Inc. v. Hanks, 156 Md.App. 543, 550 , 847 A.2d 520 , slip op. at 7 (2004).