Sheehy v. Thomas
Citation | 142 A. 506,155 Md. 688 |
Decision Date | 20 June 1928 |
Docket Number | 34. |
Parties | SHEEHY v. THOMAS. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Maryland |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dorchester County, in Equity; John R Pattison and Joseph L. Bailey, Judges.
Suit by John Y. Sheehy against William R. Thomas. From a decree dismissing the bill of complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before BOND, C.J., and URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT, DIGGES, PARKE and SLOAN, JJ.
Le Roy L. Wallace, of Cambridge, for appellant.
V Calvin Trice, of Cambridge, for appellee.
The purpose of this injunction suit is to prevent the defendant from maintaining a blind, from which to shoot water fowl, at a point in Todd's Bay, in Dorchester county, alleged to be in unlawful proximity to the water area within which the plaintiff claims priority of such gunning privileges by virtue of certain statutory provisions and of his interests as a riparian owner. The appeal is from a decree refusing the proposed injunction and dismissing the bill of complaint.
Chapter 568 of the Acts of 1927, provides, in part, as follows:
The plaintiff and defendant are the owners of adjacent tracts of land bordering on Todd's Bay. The shore of the bay is indented with a number of coves or inlets on the margin of one of which, known as "Old House Cove," the division line between the lands of the plaintiff and defendant terminates. This point on the shore line of the cove is 457 feet distant from the open bay and is separated from it by a portion of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tolman Laundry, Inc. v. Walker
...v. Telephone Co., 147 Md. 279, 280, 128 A. 39; Potomac Edison Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 165 Md. 458, 460, 169 A. 479; see Sheehy v. Thomas, 155 Md. 688, 693, 142 A. 506. [2] Baldwin v. C. & P. Tel. Co., 156 Md. 557, 144 A. 703; Deuerling v. City Baking Company, 155 Md. 280, 283, 141 A. 542, ......
-
Bowles v. M. P. Moller, Inc.
...... 116, 81 A. 275; Close v. So. Md. Agr. Ass'n, 134. Md. 629, 108 A. 209; Pub. Serv. Comm. v. Tel. Co., . 147 Md. 279, 128 A. 39; Sheehy v. Thomas, 155 Md. 688, 142 A. 506; Baldwin v. C. & P. Tel. Co., 156. Md. 552, 144 A. 703. On the appellants' petition to. intervene, the ......
-
Boyd v. Schaefer
...here for interpretation, namely, Sheehy v. Thomas, 155 Md. 688, 142 A. 506; and Councilman v. LeCompte, 179 Md. 427, 21 A.2d 535. In the Sheehy case [155 Md. 688, 142 507], Judge Urner, speaking for the Court, said: 'In order to sustain the plaintiff's contention we should have to construe ......