17 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1910–2009 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Winter v. Gorsuchgreen2 sentences2009See Budd v. Brooke, 3 Gill 235 (1845); Farquharson v. Eichelberger, 15 Md. 63, 72 (1860); Winter v. Gorsuch, 51 Md. 180, 183-84 (1879); Marshall v. Safe Deposit Co., 101 Md. 1, 13 , 60 A. 476 (1905); Pritchett v. Jackson, 103 Md. 696, 698 , 63 A. 965 (1906); Link v. MacNabb, 111 Md. 641, 647-48 , 74 A. 825, 828 (1909); Callaway v. Forest Park Co., 113 Md. 1, 7 , 77 A. 141, 143 (1910); and cf. Literski v. Literski, 166 Md. 641, 644 , 171 A. 874, 875-76 (1934). 1975The Defendant argues that the two clauses are repugnant and that even in the event they can be reconciled by looking at the intentions of the parties, the power to dispose of the property reserved by the life tenants could only be exercised during the joint lifetimes of Ambrose and Evelyn Baden.” The Chancellor recognized that the early decisional law in Maryland, as traced in Winter v. Gorsuch, 51 Md. 180 (1879), holds that where there is a conflict or repugnancy between the granting and habendum clauses in a deed, the granting clause must control and the habendum clause rejected. | 3 | 4 |
Literski v. Literskigreen2 sentences2009See Budd v. Brooke, 3 Gill 235 (1845); Farquharson v. Eichelberger, 15 Md. 63, 72 (1860); Winter v. Gorsuch, 51 Md. 180, 183-84 (1879); Marshall v. Safe Deposit Co., 101 Md. 1, 13 , 60 A. 476 (1905); Pritchett v. Jackson, 103 Md. 696, 698 , 63 A. 965 (1906); Link v. MacNabb, 111 Md. 641, 647-48 , 74 A. 825, 828 (1909); Callaway v. Forest Park Co., 113 Md. 1, 7 , 77 A. 141, 143 (1910); and cf. Literski v. Literski, 166 Md. 641, 644 , 171 A. 874, 875-76 (1934). 2009See Budd v. Brooke, 3 Gill 235 (1845); Farquharson v. Eichelberger, 15 Md. 63, 72 (1860); Winter v. Gorsuch, 51 Md. 180, 183-84 (1879); Marshall v. Safe Deposit Co., 101 Md. 1, 13 , 60 A. 476 (1905); Pritchett v. Jackson, 103 Md. 696, 698 , 63 A. 965 (1906); Link v. MacNabb, 111 Md. 641, 647-48 , 74 A. 825, 828 (1909); Callaway v. Forest Park Co., 113 Md. 1, 7 , 77 A. 141, 143 (1910); and cf. Literski v. Literski, 166 Md. 641, 644 , 171 A. 874, 875-76 (1934). | 2 | 4 |
Callaway v. Forest Park Highlands Co.green2 sentences2009See Budd v. Brooke, 3 Gill 235 (1845); Farquharson v. Eichelberger, 15 Md. 63, 72 (1860); Winter v. Gorsuch, 51 Md. 180, 183-84 (1879); Marshall v. Safe Deposit Co., 101 Md. 1, 13 , 60 A. 476 (1905); Pritchett v. Jackson, 103 Md. 696, 698 , 63 A. 965 (1906); Link v. MacNabb, 111 Md. 641, 647-48 , 74 A. 825, 828 (1909); Callaway v. Forest Park Co., 113 Md. 1, 7 , 77 A. 141, 143 (1910); and cf. Literski v. Literski, 166 Md. 641, 644 , 171 A. 874, 875-76 (1934). 2009See Budd v. Brooke, 3 Gill 235 (1845); Farquharson v. Eichelberger, 15 Md. 63, 72 (1860); Winter v. Gorsuch, 51 Md. 180, 183-84 (1879); Marshall v. Safe Deposit Co., 101 Md. 1, 13 , 60 A. 476 (1905); Pritchett v. Jackson, 103 Md. 696, 698 , 63 A. 965 (1906); Link v. MacNabb, 111 Md. 641, 647-48 , 74 A. 825, 828 (1909); Callaway v. Forest Park Co., 113 Md. 1, 7 , 77 A. 141, 143 (1910); and cf. Literski v. Literski, 166 Md. 641, 644 , 171 A. 874, 875-76 (1934). | 2 | 2 |
Link v. MacNabbgreen2 sentences2009See Budd v. Brooke, 3 Gill 235 (1845); Farquharson v. Eichelberger, 15 Md. 63, 72 (1860); Winter v. Gorsuch, 51 Md. 180, 183-84 (1879); Marshall v. Safe Deposit Co., 101 Md. 1, 13 , 60 A. 476 (1905); Pritchett v. Jackson, 103 Md. 696, 698 , 63 A. 965 (1906); Link v. MacNabb, 111 Md. 641, 647-48 , 74 A. 825, 828 (1909); Callaway v. Forest Park Co., 113 Md. 1, 7 , 77 A. 141, 143 (1910); and cf. Literski v. Literski, 166 Md. 641, 644 , 171 A. 874, 875-76 (1934). 2009See Budd v. Brooke, 3 Gill 235 (1845); Farquharson v. Eichelberger, 15 Md. 63, 72 (1860); Winter v. Gorsuch, 51 Md. 180, 183-84 (1879); Marshall v. Safe Deposit Co., 101 Md. 1, 13 , 60 A. 476 (1905); Pritchett v. Jackson, 103 Md. 696, 698 , 63 A. 965 (1906); Link v. MacNabb, 111 Md. 641, 647-48 , 74 A. 825, 828 (1909); Callaway v. Forest Park Co., 113 Md. 1, 7 , 77 A. 141, 143 (1910); and cf. Literski v. Literski, 166 Md. 641, 644 , 171 A. 874, 875-76 (1934). | 2 | 2 |
Farquharson v. Eichelbergergreen2 sentences2009See Budd v. Brooke, 3 Gill 235 (1845); Farquharson v. Eichelberger, 15 Md. 63, 72 (1860); Winter v. Gorsuch, 51 Md. 180, 183-84 (1879); Marshall v. Safe Deposit Co., 101 Md. 1, 13 , 60 A. 476 (1905); Pritchett v. Jackson, 103 Md. 696, 698 , 63 A. 965 (1906); Link v. MacNabb, 111 Md. 641, 647-48 , 74 A. 825, 828 (1909); Callaway v. Forest Park Co., 113 Md. 1, 7 , 77 A. 141, 143 (1910); and cf. Literski v. Literski, 166 Md. 641, 644 , 171 A. 874, 875-76 (1934). 2009See Budd v. Brooke, 3 Gill 235 (1845); Farquharson v. Eichelberger, 15 Md. 63, 72 (1860); Winter v. Gorsuch, 51 Md. 180, 183-84 (1879); Marshall v. Safe Deposit Co., 101 Md. 1, 13 , 60 A. 476 (1905); Pritchett v. Jackson, 103 Md. 696, 698 , 63 A. 965 (1906); Link v. MacNabb, 111 Md. 641, 647-48 , 74 A. 825, 828 (1909); Callaway v. Forest Park Co., 113 Md. 1, 7 , 77 A. 141, 143 (1910); and cf. Literski v. Literski, 166 Md. 641, 644 , 171 A. 874, 875-76 (1934). | 2 | 2 |
Marden v. Leimbachgreen2 sentences1999See Marden, 115 Md. at 209 , 80 A. at 959 (observing that, when determining the interest conveyed by a deed, in the case of conflict the granting clause generally prevails over the habendum clause). 1999See Marden, 115 Md. at 209 , 80 A. at 959 (observing that, when determining the interest conveyed by a deed, in the case of conflict the granting clause generally prevails over the habendum clause). | 1 | 3 |
Hammond v. Hammondgreen2 sentences1990In Hammond v. Hammond, 159 Md. 563 , 152 A. 107 (1930), the circumstances before the Court were that [a]n owner in fee simple of certain real estate in Baltimore conveyed it to one who immediately reconveyed it to the first grantor by a deed purporting in the granting clause to transfer a fee simple title, but containing an habendum clause, which defined the regranted estate as being vested in the grantee for his life only, with power of disposition by sale, lease, or mortgage, and with remainder to three of his children, as joint tenants, if the reserved powers were not exercised. 1990In Hammond v. Hammond, 159 Md. 563 , 152 A. 107 (1930), the circumstances before the Court were that [a]n owner in fee simple of certain real estate in Baltimore conveyed it to one who immediately reconveyed it to the first grantor by a deed purporting in the granting clause to transfer a fee simple title, but containing an habendum clause, which defined the regranted estate as being vested in the grantee for his life only, with power of disposition by sale, lease, or mortgage, and with remainder to three of his children, as joint tenants, if the reserved powers were not exercised. | 1 | 2 |
D. C. Transit Systems, Inc. v. State Roads Commissiongreen2 sentences1999Transit I, 259 Md. at 689 , 270 A.2d at 800 (“The addition of the language for ‘a right of way’ in the habendum clause ... makes clear the intent of the parties to grant an easement ----”)(emphasis in original); Richfield Oil Corp., 179 Md. at 572 , 20 A.2d at 587 -88 (quoting 2 Elliott on Railroads § 1158, at 627-28 (3d ed. 1907))(“ Where the intention to convey a fee does not appear, as in case of the conveyance of a “right of way” for the railroad through certain lands, the company takes an easement only.’ ”); Greenwalt v. McCardell, 178 Md. 132, 136 , 12 A.2d 522, 524 (1940)(“Where a right 1999Transit I, 259 Md. at 689 , 270 A.2d at 800 (“The addition of the language for ‘a right of way’ in the habendum clause ... makes clear the intent of the parties to grant an easement ----”)(emphasis in original); Richfield Oil Corp., 179 Md. at 572 , 20 A.2d at 587 -88 (quoting 2 Elliott on Railroads § 1158, at 627-28 (3d ed. 1907))(“ Where the intention to convey a fee does not appear, as in case of the conveyance of a “right of way” for the railroad through certain lands, the company takes an easement only.’ ”); Greenwalt v. McCardell, 178 Md. 132, 136 , 12 A.2d 522, 524 (1940)(“Where a right | 1 | 1 |
Greenwalt v. McCardellgreen2 sentences1999Transit I, 259 Md. at 689 , 270 A.2d at 800 (“The addition of the language for ‘a right of way’ in the habendum clause ... makes clear the intent of the parties to grant an easement ----”)(emphasis in original); Richfield Oil Corp., 179 Md. at 572 , 20 A.2d at 587 -88 (quoting 2 Elliott on Railroads § 1158, at 627-28 (3d ed. 1907))(“ Where the intention to convey a fee does not appear, as in case of the conveyance of a “right of way” for the railroad through certain lands, the company takes an easement only.’ ”); Greenwalt v. McCardell, 178 Md. 132, 136 , 12 A.2d 522, 524 (1940)(“Where a right 1999Transit I, 259 Md. at 689 , 270 A.2d at 800 (“The addition of the language for ‘a right of way’ in the habendum clause ... makes clear the intent of the parties to grant an easement ----”)(emphasis in original); Richfield Oil Corp., 179 Md. at 572 , 20 A.2d at 587 -88 (quoting 2 Elliott on Railroads § 1158, at 627-28 (3d ed. 1907))(“ Where the intention to convey a fee does not appear, as in case of the conveyance of a “right of way” for the railroad through certain lands, the company takes an easement only.’ ”); Greenwalt v. McCardell, 178 Md. 132, 136 , 12 A.2d 522, 524 (1940)(“Where a right | 1 | 1 |
Miceli v. Foleygreen2 sentences1999Transit I, 259 Md. at 689 , 270 A.2d at 800 (“The addition of the language for ‘a right of way’ in the habendum clause ... makes clear the intent of the parties to grant an easement ----”)(emphasis in original); Richfield Oil Corp., 179 Md. at 572 , 20 A.2d at 587 -88 (quoting 2 Elliott on Railroads § 1158, at 627-28 (3d ed. 1907))(“ Where the intention to convey a fee does not appear, as in case of the conveyance of a “right of way” for the railroad through certain lands, the company takes an easement only.’ ”); Greenwalt v. McCardell, 178 Md. 132, 136 , 12 A.2d 522, 524 (1940)(“Where a right 1999Transit I, 259 Md. at 689 , 270 A.2d at 800 (“The addition of the language for ‘a right of way’ in the habendum clause ... makes clear the intent of the parties to grant an easement ----”)(emphasis in original); Richfield Oil Corp., 179 Md. at 572 , 20 A.2d at 587 -88 (quoting 2 Elliott on Railroads § 1158, at 627-28 (3d ed. 1907))(“ Where the intention to convey a fee does not appear, as in case of the conveyance of a “right of way” for the railroad through certain lands, the company takes an easement only.’ ”); Greenwalt v. McCardell, 178 Md. 132, 136 , 12 A.2d 522, 524 (1940)(“Where a right | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co.green2 sentences1994In Maryland, “where property is conveyed by mortgage to secure the payment of a debt, ... the debt is the principal incident of the transaction, and ... the conveyance is no more than security for its payment, and accessory and appurtenant to it.” Mizen v. Thomas, 156 Md. 318, 318 , 144 A. 479 (1929) (citations omitted); see also Williams v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 167 Md. 499, 503 , 175 A. 331 (1934). 1994In Maryland, “where property is conveyed by mortgage to secure the payment of a debt, ... the debt is the principal incident of the transaction, and ... the conveyance is no more than security for its payment, and accessory and appurtenant to it.” Mizen v. Thomas, 156 Md. 318, 318 , 144 A. 479 (1929) (citations omitted); see also Williams v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 167 Md. 499, 503 , 175 A. 331 (1934). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pritchett v. Jackson
neutral
2 sentences2009See Budd v. Brooke, 3 Gill 235 (1845); Farquharson v. Eichelberger, 15 Md. 63, 72 (1860); Winter v. Gorsuch, 51 Md. 180, 183-84 (1879); Marshall v. Safe Deposit Co., 101 Md. 1, 13 , 60 A. 476 (1905); Pritchett v. Jackson, 103 Md. 696, 698 , 63 A. 965 (1906); Link v. MacNabb, 111 Md. 641, 647-48 , 74 A. 825, 828 (1909); Callaway v. Forest Park Co., 113 Md. 1, 7 , 77 A. 141, 143 (1910); and cf. Literski v. Literski, 166 Md. 641, 644 , 171 A. 874, 875-76 (1934). 2009See Budd v. Brooke, 3 Gill 235 (1845); Farquharson v. Eichelberger, 15 Md. 63, 72 (1860); Winter v. Gorsuch, 51 Md. 180, 183-84 (1879); Marshall v. Safe Deposit Co., 101 Md. 1, 13 , 60 A. 476 (1905); Pritchett v. Jackson, 103 Md. 696, 698 , 63 A. 965 (1906); Link v. MacNabb, 111 Md. 641, 647-48 , 74 A. 825, 828 (1909); Callaway v. Forest Park Co., 113 Md. 1, 7 , 77 A. 141, 143 (1910); and cf. Literski v. Literski, 166 Md. 641, 644 , 171 A. 874, 875-76 (1934). | 3 | 1990–2009 |
Marshall v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co.
green
2 sentences2009See Budd v. Brooke, 3 Gill 235 (1845); Farquharson v. Eichelberger, 15 Md. 63, 72 (1860); Winter v. Gorsuch, 51 Md. 180, 183-84 (1879); Marshall v. Safe Deposit Co., 101 Md. 1, 13 , 60 A. 476 (1905); Pritchett v. Jackson, 103 Md. 696, 698 , 63 A. 965 (1906); Link v. MacNabb, 111 Md. 641, 647-48 , 74 A. 825, 828 (1909); Callaway v. Forest Park Co., 113 Md. 1, 7 , 77 A. 141, 143 (1910); and cf. Literski v. Literski, 166 Md. 641, 644 , 171 A. 874, 875-76 (1934). 2009See Budd v. Brooke, 3 Gill 235 (1845); Farquharson v. Eichelberger, 15 Md. 63, 72 (1860); Winter v. Gorsuch, 51 Md. 180, 183-84 (1879); Marshall v. Safe Deposit Co., 101 Md. 1, 13 , 60 A. 476 (1905); Pritchett v. Jackson, 103 Md. 696, 698 , 63 A. 965 (1906); Link v. MacNabb, 111 Md. 641, 647-48 , 74 A. 825, 828 (1909); Callaway v. Forest Park Co., 113 Md. 1, 7 , 77 A. 141, 143 (1910); and cf. Literski v. Literski, 166 Md. 641, 644 , 171 A. 874, 875-76 (1934). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Adams v. Parater
green
2 sentences1990Adams v. Parater, 206 Md. 224, 236 , 111 A.2d 590 (1955); Literski v. Literski, 166 Md. 641, 644 , 171 A. 874 (1934); Marden v. Leimbach, 115 Md. 206, 209 , 80 A. 958 (1911); Pritchett v. Jackson, 103 Md. 696, 698 , 63 A. 965 (1906); Winter v. Gorsuch, 51 Md. 180, 184-185 (1879). 1990Adams v. Parater, 206 Md. 224, 236 , 111 A.2d 590 (1955); Literski v. Literski, 166 Md. 641, 644 , 171 A. 874 (1934); Marden v. Leimbach, 115 Md. 206, 209 , 80 A. 958 (1911); Pritchett v. Jackson, 103 Md. 696, 698 , 63 A. 965 (1906); Winter v. Gorsuch, 51 Md. 180, 184-185 (1879). | 2 | 1963–1990 |
Knell v. Price
green
2 sentences2007Kathleen relies on Knell v. Price, 318 Md. 501 , 569 A.2d 636 (1990), for the proposition that — as a matter of law — a deceased spouse’s transfer of property during the marriage constitutes fraud on the marital rights of the surviving spouse whenever, as is the situation in the case at bar, the “transfer” was not “complete, absolute, and unconditional.” In Knell , a husband who had separated from his wife transferred real property to a “trustee,” but the deed — which purported to create a life interest in the husband, with a fee simple interest passing to the husband’s female companion upon t 2007Kathleen relies on Knell v. Price, 318 Md. 501 , 569 A.2d 636 (1990), for the proposition that — as a matter of law — a deceased spouse’s transfer of property during the marriage constitutes fraud on the marital rights of the surviving spouse whenever, as is the situation in the case at bar, the “transfer” was not “complete, absolute, and unconditional.” In Knell , a husband who had separated from his wife transferred real property to a “trustee,” but the deed — which purported to create a life interest in the husband, with a fee simple interest passing to the husband’s female companion upon t | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Richfield Oil Corp. v. Railroad Co.
green
2 sentences1999Transit I, 259 Md. at 689 , 270 A.2d at 800 (“The addition of the language for ‘a right of way’ in the habendum clause ... makes clear the intent of the parties to grant an easement ----”)(emphasis in original); Richfield Oil Corp., 179 Md. at 572 , 20 A.2d at 587 -88 (quoting 2 Elliott on Railroads § 1158, at 627-28 (3d ed. 1907))(“ Where the intention to convey a fee does not appear, as in case of the conveyance of a “right of way” for the railroad through certain lands, the company takes an easement only.’ ”); Greenwalt v. McCardell, 178 Md. 132, 136 , 12 A.2d 522, 524 (1940)(“Where a right 1999Transit I, 259 Md. at 689 , 270 A.2d at 800 (“The addition of the language for ‘a right of way’ in the habendum clause ... makes clear the intent of the parties to grant an easement ----”)(emphasis in original); Richfield Oil Corp., 179 Md. at 572 , 20 A.2d at 587 -88 (quoting 2 Elliott on Railroads § 1158, at 627-28 (3d ed. 1907))(“ Where the intention to convey a fee does not appear, as in case of the conveyance of a “right of way” for the railroad through certain lands, the company takes an easement only.’ ”); Greenwalt v. McCardell, 178 Md. 132, 136 , 12 A.2d 522, 524 (1940)(“Where a right | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Mizen v. Thomas
green
1 sentence1994In Maryland, “where property is conveyed by mortgage to secure the payment of a debt, ... the debt is the principal incident of the transaction, and ... the conveyance is no more than security for its payment, and accessory and appurtenant to it.” Mizen v. Thomas, 156 Md. 318, 318 , 144 A. 479 (1929) (citations omitted); see also Williams v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 167 Md. 499, 503 , 175 A. 331 (1934). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Budd v. Brooke
green
1 sentence1975The court there quoted from Budd v. Brooke, 3 Gill 198 (1845): “. . . where the habendum is repugnant and contrary to the premises it is void, and the grantee shall take the estate given in the premises.” The court in the instant case felt, however, that this rule was “qualified” by later decisions evidencing a “more modern approach.” In Winter , the granting clause conveyed a fee simple interest and the habendum conveyed a life estate. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Scholtes v. McColgan
green
2 sentences1973Also following the habendum clause is a restriction against sale to “any person having negro blood in his veins, commonly known as colored people ....” Our predecessors indicated in 1938 in Meade v. Dennistone, 173 Md. 295, 305 , 196 A. 330 , 335 and again in 1945 in Scholtes v. McColgan, 184 Md. 480, 487 , 41 A. 2d 479, 482-83 , that a similar restriction in regard to the sale of land was invalid as an unreasonable restraint on alienation. 2 . 1973Also following the habendum clause is a restriction against sale to “any person having negro blood in his veins, commonly known as colored people ....” Our predecessors indicated in 1938 in Meade v. Dennistone, 173 Md. 295, 305 , 196 A. 330 , 335 and again in 1945 in Scholtes v. McColgan, 184 Md. 480, 487 , 41 A. 2d 479, 482-83 , that a similar restriction in regard to the sale of land was invalid as an unreasonable restraint on alienation. 2 . | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Meade v. Dennistone
green
2 sentences1973Also following the habendum clause is a restriction against sale to “any person having negro blood in his veins, commonly known as colored people ....” Our predecessors indicated in 1938 in Meade v. Dennistone, 173 Md. 295, 305 , 196 A. 330 , 335 and again in 1945 in Scholtes v. McColgan, 184 Md. 480, 487 , 41 A. 2d 479, 482-83 , that a similar restriction in regard to the sale of land was invalid as an unreasonable restraint on alienation. 2 . 1973Also following the habendum clause is a restriction against sale to “any person having negro blood in his veins, commonly known as colored people ....” Our predecessors indicated in 1938 in Meade v. Dennistone, 173 Md. 295, 305 , 196 A. 330 , 335 and again in 1945 in Scholtes v. McColgan, 184 Md. 480, 487 , 41 A. 2d 479, 482-83 , that a similar restriction in regard to the sale of land was invalid as an unreasonable restraint on alienation. 2 . | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Bladen v. Wells
green
1 sentence1972Citing Bladen v. Wells, supra, this Court held a conveyance in fee simple was required, stating: “In this case, though the appellant argues that the appellee has not in terms charged the appellant with fraud, accident, or mistake in the transaction, we think it is so stated as to come *202 under at least one of these heads, and the appellant should be required to answer the bill of complaint.” Id. at 464. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Smith v. Sweat
green
2 sentences1972The trial judge saw significance in the language “hereinafter described pieces or parcels of ground,” coupled with the fact that after the description the deed said “together with all and singular the improvements to said pieces or parcels of ground belonging,” stating “[t]he ‘said pieces or parcels of ground’ are the three described and the same terms are used in the reference to the rents and also in the habendum clause.” (Emphasis that of the trial court.) In sustaining the judgment of the trial court *686 our predecessors referred to the case of Smith v. Sweat, 90 Me. 528 , 38 A. 554 (1897 1972The trial judge saw significance in the language “hereinafter described pieces or parcels of ground,” coupled with the fact that after the description the deed said “together with all and singular the improvements to said pieces or parcels of ground belonging,” stating “[t]he ‘said pieces or parcels of ground’ are the three described and the same terms are used in the reference to the rents and also in the habendum clause.” (Emphasis that of the trial court.) In sustaining the judgment of the trial court *686 our predecessors referred to the case of Smith v. Sweat, 90 Me. 528 , 38 A. 554 (1897 | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Maryland & Virginia Eldership of the Churches of God v. Church of God at Sharpsburg, Inc.
green
2 sentences1969The deed to the Sharpsburg church recites in the habendum clause that it is held by the trustees and their successors ‘in trust for the use of the congregation of the Church of God at Sharpsburg, Maryland/ and— ‘* * * in the event the congregation of the Church of God at Sharpsburg, Maryland, ceases to function as a church organization, then all right, title and interest in the hereinabove described property shall immediately vest in the Maryland and Virginia Eldership of the Churches of God in North America, a body corporate, its successors or assigns.’ (Emphasis supplied.) “One of the Indian 1969The deed to the Sharpsburg church recites in the habendum clause that it is held by the trustees and their successors ‘in trust for the use of the congregation of the Church of God at Sharpsburg, Maryland/ and— ‘* * * in the event the congregation of the Church of God at Sharpsburg, Maryland, ceases to function as a church organization, then all right, title and interest in the hereinabove described property shall immediately vest in the Maryland and Virginia Eldership of the Churches of God in North America, a body corporate, its successors or assigns.’ (Emphasis supplied.) “One of the Indian | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Gribble v. Call
green
1 sentence1948App. 123 S. W. 2d 711, 712 , the habendum clause was “unto the said Dick Taylor Camp, U. C. | 1 | 1948–1948 |
Kelso v. Stigar
green
1 sentence1924The assertion by the Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the Diocese of Maryland of title by adverse possession is not, therefore, inconsistent- with the habendum clause of said deed, and the doctrine of Kelso v. Stigar, 75 Md. 376 , cited by the appellants, does not apply. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Burroughs v. Clarke
neutral
1 sentence1910Budd v. Brooke et al., 3 Gill, 196 ; Marshall v. Safe Deposit Co., 101 Md. 12 . | 1 | 1910–1910 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.