Hamilton's Lessee v. Cawood & Blacklock

3 Md. 437
General Court of Virginia·Decided May 15, 1796·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The Court

were of opinion that the party must be confined to his courses and distances, and that he cannot explain by parol testimony what land was intended to be conveyed.

The plaintiff suffered a nonsuit.

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

Hamilton's Lessee v. Cawood & Blacklock, 3 Md. 437 (Va. Super. Ct. 1796).

3 Md. 437 (Hamilton's Lessee v. Cawood & Blacklock) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission v. Cae-Link Corp.
622 A.2d 745 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1993)