1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Md.
  4. 235 Md.
  5. 235 Md. 54 (1964)
 

MATTINGLY v. HOUSTON

[No. 273, September Term, 1963.]

235 Md. 54 (1964)

200 A.2d 160

MATTINGLY ET AL. v. HOUSTON ET AL.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Decided May 11, 1964.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

William M. Canby and Allan B. Blumberg, with whom were Miller, Miller & Canby on the brief, for appellants.

Howard J. Thomas, with whom were Bradshaw & Thomas, J. Douglas Bradshaw and Francis E. Yeatman on the brief, for appellees.

The cause was argued before HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY and SYBERT, JJ.

SYBERT, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

We are called upon in this appeal to determine whether the Circuit Court for Montgomery County erred in ordering reformation of a deed from the appellants to the appellees for certain lots in a subdivision.

The appellants, Joseph A. Mattingly and Marion Mattingly, his wife, engaged a firm of civil engineers in 1952 to prepare a preliminary plan of resubdivision for a part of a development owned by them in Montgomery...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases