Donohue Realty Co. v. Wagner

4 Citing cases

  1. Goldstein v. Potomac Elec. Power Co.

    285 Md. 673 (Md. 1979)   Cited 43 times
    In Goldstein v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 285 Md. 673, 404 A.2d 1064 (1979), the Maryland Court of Appeals noted the general rule in this State that limitations run from the date of the alleged wrong and not from the date of its discovery.

    See Susquehanna Fertilizer Co. v. Malone, 73 Md. 268, 280, 20 A. 900 (1890). In deciding the case on Pepco's motion for summary judgment, the District Court recognized the distinction between a permanent and a temporary nuisance. It noted that under Maryland law, damages — past, present and future — for permanent reduction in the market value of the land can only be recovered for a permanent nuisance, citing Donohue Realty Co. v. Wagner, 154 Md. 588, 141 A. 337 (1928), and Carroll Springs Co. v. Schnepfe, 111 Md. 420, 74 A. 828 (1909). Where the nuisance is only temporary, the court said that the injured party must resort to successive suits to recover for injuries if and when they actually occurred, citing Aberdeen v. Bradford, 94 Md. 670, 51 A. 614 (1902).

  2. Goldstein v. Potomac Power Co.

    578 F.2d 975 (4th Cir. 1978)   Cited 1 times

    Cf. Ann. Code of Md., Cts. Jud.Proc., § 5-103(b)(1). Relying on dicta in a case decided fifty years ago by the Maryland Court of Appeals, J. T. Donohue Realty Co. v. Wagner, 154 Md. 588, 141 A. 337, 339 (1928), the district court concluded that defendant's theory was consonant with Maryland law and that, therefore, plaintiffs' suit was barred by § 5-101. Accordingly, the district court entered judgment for defendant.

  3. Pascal v. Hurwitz

    172 F. Supp. 402 (D. Md. 1959)

    Emphasis supplied. See Shinn v. Eagle-Picher Mining & Smelting Co., 8 Cir., 1949, 172 F.2d 717, 720 (cited by plaintiff), and Donohue save Realty Co. v. Wagner, 1928, 154 Md. 588, 141 A. 337, and Arthur v. Morrow Bros., 1917, 131 Md. 59, 101 A. 777, L.R.A.1918A, 400 (cited by defendant). In the hearing on the motions, counsel for defendant herein conceded that no claim was made that the releases were invalid or voidable.

  4. Waldrop v. Brevard

    233 N.C. 26 (N.C. 1950)   Cited 9 times

    And the waiver or release of any right to make a future claim for damages or other relief, resulting from the use of the premises conveyed to the defendant as a garbage dump, constitutes a covenant not to sue and is binding on the grantors, their heirs and assigns. Consolidation Coal Co. v. Mann, 298 Ky. 28, 181 S.W.2d 394; Brush v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 290 Pa. 322, 138 P. 860; J. T. Donohue Realty Co. v. Wagner, 154 Md. 588, 141 A. 337; Mayor and Councilmen of Troy v. Coleman, 58 Ala. 570; Mayor and Councilmen of Union Springs v. Jones, 58 Ala. 654. 13 C.J., Section 399, p. 458; 17 C.J.S., Sec. 104, p. 459. "If the owner of property has charged it with a servitude as to the matter complained of, a subsequent grantee cannot recover damages therefor."