Mullen v. Sanborn

Baltimore City Court

Mullen v. Sanborn

1 Balt. C. Rep. 541

DecidedNovember 22, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Balt. C. Rep. 541 (Mullen v. Sanborn) 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

Mullen v. Sanborn, 1 Balt. C. Rep. 541 (Md. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

PHELPS, J.

The Court is of the opinion:

1. That the petition for removal was filed in time.

2. This not being a case where “special bail” is required, the law does not require the bond to be conditional for the party’s “appearing and entering special bail.”

[542]*5423. The party has the right at this stage to remove, and the question of res adjudieata (as to the validity of process), as well as all other issues involved, must necessarily be left to the jurisdiction invoked.

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

PHELPS, J.

The Court is of the opinion:

1. That the petition for removal was filed in time.

2. This not being a case where “special bail” is required, the law does not require the bond to be conditional for the party’s “appearing and entering special bail.”

[542]*5423. The party has the right at this stage to remove, and the question of res adjudieata (as to the validity of process), as well as all other issues involved, must necessarily be left to the jurisdiction invoked.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Balt. C. Rep. 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mullen-v-sanborn-mdcityctbalt-1895.