Levin v. Hirschman

5 Citing cases

  1. National Elec. Indus. v. Beth. Steel

    296 Md. 541 (Md. 1983)   Cited 10 times
    In National Elec. Indus. v. Beth. Steel, 296 Md. 541, 463 A.2d 858 (1983), a subcontractor which was hired by a general contractor to perform electrical work failed to make required contributions to health, welfare, pension, and annuity funds based upon the number of hours worked by each employee.

    Each petition also reflects on its face that there are some employees on whose behalf claim is made and as to whom notice was timely given. Bethlehem filed a general demurrer. It goes to the entire petition in each case. A general demurrer in equity which is good only as to part of a bill is to be overruled. See Causey v. Gray, 250 Md. 380, 243 A.2d 575 (1968); Levin v. Hirschman, 158 Md. 162, 148 A. 228 (1930); E. Miller, Equity Procedure as Established in the Courts of Maryland, § 134, at 173 (1897). Judgments of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County reversed and cases remanded for further proceedings.

  2. Kahn v. Janowski

    60 A.2d 519 (Md. 1948)   Cited 17 times

    The purport of such a demurrer is a denial that the complainant has any right whatever to bring the defendant into court on the case presented. Young v. Cockman, 182 Md. 246, 34 A.2d 428, 149 A.L.R. 1006; Miller v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., 183 Md. 19, 27, 36 A.2d 517; Lessans v. Lessans, 184 Md. 549, 553, 42 A.2d 132, 171 A.L.R. 1430; Borchert v. Borchert, 185 Md. 586, 590, 45 A.2d 463, 162 A.L.R. 1078. But it is also an established rule that where a demurrer is filed to the whole bill, but the bill contains some allegations sufficient to give equity jurisdiction, the demurrer must be overruled. Miller v. Baltimore County Marble Co., 52 Md. 642, 646; Levin v. Hirschman, 158 Md. 162, 148 A. 228; Atlantic Lumber Corporation v. Waxman, 162 Md. 191, 159 A. 593. As complainants prayed for specific performance, accounting, declaration of trust and other relief, and it appears that complainants are not entitled to specific performance, but may be entitled to other relief prayed in the bill, the demurrer was properly overruled.

  3. Elko v. Elko

    187 Md. 161 (Md. 1946)   Cited 14 times

    d therefore the question as to whether she should receive rent for that apartment, as hereinbefore stated, is not before this Court and we are not passing upon it here. Compare, Nicodemus v. Nicodemus, 186 Md. 659, 48 A.2d 442, 446, 447; Neubeck v. Neubeck, 94 N.J. Eq. 167, 119 A. 26, 27 A.L.R. 172; Lukaszewicz v. Lukaszewicz, 137 N.J. Eq. 373, 44 A.2d 906, decided December 28, 1945. From the allegations of the bill, the facts to be established, and under the authorities hereinbefore cited, which state that the wife shares equally with the husband in the income from property held as tenants by the entirties, this Court is of opinion that the appellant should share equally with her husband in the net income from the two apartments in question in the property at No. 418 East North Avenue. Regardless of the other questions involved in the case, which are not before us at this time, as the demurrer is to the whole bill, it should be overruled and the case remanded for further proceedings. Levin v. Hirschman, 158 Md. 162, 165, 148 A. 228; Atlantic Lumber Corp. v. Waxman, 162 Md. 191, 194, 159 A. 593. Decree reversed with costs, and case remanded for further proceedings.

  4. Brann v. Mahoney

    187 Md. 89 (Md. 1946)   Cited 8 times
    In Brann v. Mahoney, 187 Md. 89, 48 A.2d 605 (1946), the Court of Appeals observed that Article 78B of the Maryland Code "gives power to the Racing Commission which prescribes rules and regulations under which all horse races shall be conducted in this State."

    Where a general demurrer is filed to the whole bill and it be found that part of the bill is good and petitioner is entitled to some relief, the general demurrer should be overruled. Levin v. Hirschman, 158 Md. 162, 165, 148 A. 228; Miller's Equity Procedure, Sec. 134, p. 172. Article 78B of Flack's Annotated Code, 1939, Section 11, gives power to the Racing Commission to prescribe rules and regulations under which all horse races shall be conducted in this state.

  5. Levin v. Hirschmann

    159 A. 775 (Md. 1932)

    After her appointment as administratrix d.b.n. of the estate of Dena Levin, Beatrice took an assignment of the first mortgage on said Baltimore Street property, and on July 3rd, 1928, proceeded to foreclose said mortgage in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City. Adolph B. Hirschmann filed a petition and an amended petition in said foreclosure case asking that his second mortgage be declared a lien on said property and the proceeds thereof; that the rights of the respective parties in the proceeds of sale thereof be marshaled; and for general relief. In March, 1929, he filed a petition asking that Beatrice Levin, administratrix d.b.n. of the estate of Dena Levin, and Beatrice Levin and the other children of Dena Levin, be made parties defendant, and the said parties defendant demurred to the amended petition of Hirschmann, which was overruled, and on appeal the order appealed from was affirmed in the case of Levin v. Hirschmann, 158 Md. 162, 148 A. 228. After the remand defendants filed an answer wherein they deny that Hirschmann's mortgage is or was a lien on said Baltimore Street property; call attention to the fact appearing on the face of this petition that six properties are included in said mortgage, and that the petition sets forth no reason why the amount claimed by the petitioner should not be made out of the other properties; allege that Wolf Levin was indebted to the estate of Dena Levin in a sum larger than his distributive share of said estate, and that the administratrix is entitled to set off any claim due unto the estate against said distributive share. The record, prepared according to the instructions of appellants' solicitors, gives no information as to the proceedings following the filing of the answer except (1) the purport of the auditor's report filed on May 18th, 1931, in the foreclosure proceeding, which is the subject of this appeal; (2) the exceptions to the audit; (3) the testimony taken therein and the