7 Maryland opinions name it 1 courts 1881–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Economy Savings Bank v. Gordongreen2 sentences2011Bank v. Gordon, 90 Md. [486], 504, 45 A. 176 , 48 L.R.A. 63 [ (1900) ].” Irvington Fed. 2011Bank v. Gordon, 90 Md. [486], 504, 45 A. 176 , 48 L.R.A. 63 [ (1900) ].” Irvington Fed. | 1 | 2 |
Seldner v. McCreerygreen2 sentences2011This Court said that “[a] mortgagee is treated as a purchaser, and ‘where title is perfect on its face and no known circumstances exist to impeach it, or put a purchaser on inquiry, one who buys bona fide and for value occupies one of the most highly favored positions in the law.’ Seldner v. McCreery, 75 Md. 287, 296 , 23 A. 641, 643 [ (1892) ]; Economy Sav. 2011This Court said that “[a] mortgagee is treated as a purchaser, and ‘where title is perfect on its face and no known circumstances exist to impeach it, or put a purchaser on inquiry, one who buys bona fide and for value occupies one of the most highly favored positions in the law.’ Seldner v. McCreery, 75 Md. 287, 296 , 23 A. 641, 643 [ (1892) ]; Economy Sav. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smoot v. Rea
green
2 sentences1972It is obvious from the record that the owners of the apartment house were conscious of the presence of the Bakst machines, as well they had to have been, for, as Judge (later Chief Judge) Bartol said for our predecessors in Smoot v. Rea, 19 Md. 398 (1863), quoted by Judge Bowie: "It is well settled, that `what is sufficient to put a purchaser on inquiry, is good notice, that is, where a man has sufficient information to lead him to a fact, he shall be deemed conusant of it.' Magruder v. Peter, 11 G. & J. [217,] 243. *251 Price v. McDonald, 1 Md. [403,] 419. 1972It is obvious from the record that the owners of the apartment house were conscious of the presence of the Bakst machines, as well they had to have been, for, as Judge (later Chief Judge) Bartol said for our predecessors in Smoot v. Rea, 19 Md. 398 (1863), quoted by Judge Bowie: “It is well settled, that ‘what is sufficient to put a purchaser on inquiry, is good notice, that is, where a man has sufficient information to lead him to a fact, he shall be deemed conusant of it.’ Magruder v. Peter, 11 G. & J. [217,] 243. | 2 | 1972–1972 |
Mead v. Pinyard
neutral
1 sentence1929Encyc. of Law (2d Ed.), p. 1111, it is said: “The sleeping car company, by furnishing cars under a contract with the railway company to be used as sleeping cars by the traveling public, does not assume towards the persons occupying its cars the relation of a carrier, nor undertake the duty of transporting the passengers to their destination, but the obligation which devolves upon it by the sale of a ticket is to grant the purchaser the privilege of riding in its car and of using the additional comforts and conveniences which it furnishes.” Pullman Co. v. Campbell, 154 U. S. 620 , 38 L. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Upton v. Hansbrough
neutral
1 sentence1882Upton, Assignee, 3 Bissell, 417 ; Upton, Assignee vs. | 1 | 1882–1882 |
Cooke's Lessee v. Kell
green
1 sentence1881Kell, 13 Md., 469 . “ What is sufficient to put a purchaser on inquiry is good notice, that is, where a man has sufficient information to lead him to a fact, he shall he deemed conusant of it.” 2 Sugden on Vendors, 762m, and on page 775m, it is laid down that “in all cases where a purchaser cannot make out a title, hut by a deed which leads him to another fact, whether by description of the parties, recital or otherwise, he shall he deemed conusant thereof, for it was crassa negligentia that he sought not after it; and for the same reason if a purchaser has notice of a deed, he is hound by all | 1 | 1881–1881 |
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.