Baer v. Ciotti

2 Balt. C. Rep. 526
CourtBaltimore City Court
DecidedFebruary 8, 1908
StatusPublished

This text of 2 Balt. C. Rep. 526 (Baer v. Ciotti) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Baltimore City Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Baer v. Ciotti, 2 Balt. C. Rep. 526 (Md. Super. Ct. 1908).

Opinion

NILES, J.—

The motion for a reargument of this case will be overruled.

The gist of the narr. is that, after due notice, “the defendants failed and refused to -build the wall.”

It seems to this court that the defendants did not, in any true legal sense, “refuse” to build the wall, and that there can be liability upon them for “failure” to build the wall, provided that the allegations of the fifth plea are true, viz: that “without fault of these defendants, or any of them,” the defendants “were prevented from erecting said wall by the acts of plaintiffs”

The fifth plea, therefore, presents a good defense.

If the counsel for plaintiff desires he can demur to the first four pleas of the defendant. Sustaining a demurrer [527]*527to four pleas out of five, is very different from entering up judgement in favor of the plaintiff for the full amount claimed because no sufficient defense has been made.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Balt. C. Rep. 526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baer-v-ciotti-mdcityctbalt-1908.