Beale v. Creswell

Decided December 15, 1852

Court of Appeals of Maryland · decided 1852-12-15

Appear, from Cecil county court. This was an action of assumpsit brought by the appellant, who wras a property agent or broker, to recover from the appellee the value of services alleged to have been rendered by him in procuring a purchaser for a certain house in the city of Baltimore belonging to the appellee. The declaration contained the usual indebitatus assumpsit counts, and the plea was non assumpsit. Exception.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1852-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently June 1983

9 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mason, J.,

¶1dissented, and delivered the following opinion:

¶2I am of the opinion that the plaintiff’s second prayer ought to have been granted.

¶3If the sale to Mr. Morris was the fruit of the labor and skill of the plaintiff previously rendered, the defendant ought to pay for them, and that fact ought to' be left to the jury. The mere circumstance of havingbhanged her relation to the property, from part to sole owner, whether this was done to evade her responsibility to the defendant or not, does not, in my opinion, vary the question. Nor did the revocation of the authority of the plaintiff change the case. This revocation did not take place until after the service had been rendered, and the defendant placed in a condition to profit by it. Keener vs. Brooke and Harrod, 2 Md. Rep., 63.

¶4My opinion is,, the judgment ouglit to be reversed and the cause remanded.