Bronstein v. American Ice Co.

86 A. 131, 119 Md. 132, 1912 Md. LEXIS 78
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedDecember 7, 1912
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 86 A. 131 (Bronstein v. American Ice Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bronstein v. American Ice Co., 86 A. 131, 119 Md. 132, 1912 Md. LEXIS 78 (Md. 1912).

Opinion

*133 Thomas, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This suit was brought by the appellant in the Baltimore’ City Court to recover.damages for injuries alleged to háve been sustained while on one of the streets of said city by reason of the negligence of the appellee’s agent or servant.

The .record shows that the case has been tried three times. The first trial resulted in a verdict'for the plaintiff • for $100.00. On the motion of the plaintiff that verdict was set aside and a new trial granted, and at the second trial the jury failed to agree. ■ ■ ■:

The third trial began on the 13th of March, 1912, and what took place at that trial, is stated in the certificate of the presiding judge and agreement of counsel, set out in the record and also included in the first bill of exceptions, as follows:

“Testimony having been taken on behalf of both the plaintiff and defendant, and’the Court having granted prayers at the request of the plaintiff and the defendant, after argument on the 14th day of March, 1912, the jury' retired’ to consider their verdict and were given leave to bring a sealed verdict to the Court at 10 o’clock A. M. on Eriday. the 15th day of March, 1912, at which time the Court and ■jury met pursuant to agreement.

Immediately upon the meeting of the Court, the clerk, Mr. Stephens, announced that the jury had agreed. The Court then told Mr."Stephens to take the verdict. Mr. Stephens then read the names of the jurymen and the sealed verdict of the’jury was’then handed to the clerk by the foreman, who thereupon handed it to the Court. Whilst it was being opened by the Court, the clerk called the plaintiff and the plaintiff answered by Mr. Lewis S. Ashman, one of the counsel of record for the plaintiff. Cpon the opening of the sealed verdict by the Court, the Court expressed its unwillingness to receive it in the form fin which it was, owing to a clerical error. The form in which it then appeared was as follows: (Though counsel were not shown it- or informed of its nature.)

*134

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

Related

Nails v. S & R, INC.
639 A.2d 660 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1994)
S & R, INC. v. Nails
584 A.2d 722 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1991)
Traylor v. Grafton
332 A.2d 651 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1975)
Ager v. Baltimore Transit Co.
132 A.2d 469 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1957)
Harris v. Hipsley
89 A. 852 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
86 A. 131, 119 Md. 132, 1912 Md. LEXIS 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bronstein-v-american-ice-co-md-1912.