1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Md.
  4. 273 Md.
  5. 273 Md. 277 (1974)
 

ADDRESSOGRAPH-MULTIGRAPH v. ZINK

[No. 66, September Term. 1974.]

273 Md. 277 (1974)

329 A.2d 28

ADDRESSOGRAPH-MULTIGRAPH CORPORATION v. ZINK ET UX.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Motion for rehearing filed January 2, 1975.

Denied January 8, 1975.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Daniel H. Scherr and Terry B. Blair, with whom were Sybert, Sybert & Nippard on the brief, for appellant.

Millard D. Bloom for appellees.

The cause was argued before MURPHY, C.J., and SINGLEY, SMITH, DIGGES, LEVINE, ELDRIDGE and O'DONNELL, JJ.

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

In February, 1970, George Zink, trading as Peacock Printing Company, leased from C.I.T. Leasing Corporation (C.I.T.) a VariTyper, a Headliner and a Waxer, all manufactured by VariTyper Corporation, then a subsidiary, and now a division, of Addressograph-Multigraph Corporation (Addressograph). The equipment, purchased at an unspecified date from Addressograph by C.I.T., had been delivered to Zink's printing plant in...

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