Slicing Machine Co., Inc. v. Murphy

9 Citing cases

  1. Kronovet v. Lipchin

    288 Md. 30 (Md. 1980)   Cited 70 times
    Holding that generally parties to a contract may agree as to law which will govern their transaction, even as to issues going to the validity of the contract

    John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Fidelity-Baltimore National Bank Trust Company, 212 Md. 506, 511, 129 A.2d 815, 819 (1957). An employment contract in Globe Slicing Machine Company v. Murphy, 161 Md. 667, 158 A. 26 (1932) provided that its validity, construction, interpretation or performance should be governed by the laws of New York. The defendant employer argued that the plaintiff's case failed for lack of proof of New York law.

  2. Denice v. Spotswood I. Quinby, Inc.

    237 A.2d 4 (Md. 1968)   Cited 26 times
    Incorporating the provisions of a county building code into a construction contract

    Judge Hammond paraphrased the general rule in the Court's opinion: "It is a familiar principle often applied in the cases that `* * * the laws which subsist at the time and place of making a contract enter into and form a part of it, as if they were expressly referred to or incorporated in its terms; and this rule embraces alike those which affect its validity, construction, discharge and enforcement.' Brown v. Smart, 69 Md. 320, 330; Globe Slicing Machine Co., Inc. v. Murphy, 161 Md. 667, 671. It is not necessary to determine how far this broad statement would be applicable and controlling in various contexts and situations. See 3 Corbin, Contracts, Sec. 551.

  3. Whitworth v. Department of Mental Hygiene

    222 Md. 98 (Md. 1960)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that a statutory provision entitling the Department of Mental Hygiene to make a claim against the estate of a deceased person, committed to one of its institutions, for past maintenance and support of that person became incorporated into the contract between the deceased's trustees and the County because enactment of the provision preceded the formation of the agreement and was not substantively changed thereafter

    4 of Art. 59 of the Code of 1939 necessarily had a bearing on the agreement, they too must be read into and become a part of any agreement made under the provisions of the statute. Globe Slicing Machine Co. v. Murphy, 161 Md. 667, 158 A. 26 (1932) [general rule is that subsisting laws enter into and form part of contract as if expressly referred to or incorporated in terms, and this rule embraces alike those which affect its validity, construction, discharge and enforcement], cited in Griffith v. Scheungrab, 219 Md. 27, 146 A.2d 864 (1958). Here, there was a statutory provision that the agreement was subject to modification and change from time to time.

  4. Griffith v. Scheungrab

    219 Md. 27 (Md. 1958)   Cited 50 times
    Holding that a federal statutory provision requiring certain sellers to provide buyers with a written appraisal of the value of the property was incorporated into the contract between the parties because, judging from the contract terms and circumstances, the parties impliedly intended to comply with the provision

    " Since Col. Griffith had not been shown any appraisal before he signed the contract, under the law the FHA mortgage could not have been obtained without the amendment to the contract; and Mrs. Scheungrab clearly would not be entitled to specific performance of the original contract under its own terms. It is a familiar principle often applied in the cases that "* * * the laws which subsist at the time and place of making a contract enter into and form a part of it, as if they were expressly referred to or incorporated in its terms; and this rule embraces alike those which affect its validity, construction, discharge, and enforcement." Brown v. Smart, 69 Md. 320, 330; Globe Slicing Machine Co., Inc. v. Murphy, 161 Md. 667, 671. It is not necessary to determine how far this broad statement would be applicable and controlling in various contexts and situations. See 3 Corbin, Contracts, Sec. 551. Here the contract of the parties left no doubt that they contemplated compliance by both with the pertinent requirements of the FHA as to mortgage guarantees of loans to servicemen.

  5. Petite v. Homes, Inc.

    184 Md. 377 (Md. 1945)   Cited 6 times
    In Petite, Judge Markell remarked that "the amount claimed would not become unliquidated if the jury should allow less," citing Dirickson v. Showell, supra.

    The defendants contend that requirements of the Speedy Judgment Act have not been complied with. After pleas filed, issue joined, trial, verdict and judgment on the merits, noncompliance with such requirements is immaterial ( Globe Slicing Machine Co., Inc. v. Murphy, 161 Md. 667, 674, 158 A. 26), except as affecting the legality of the counsel fee allowed under the act. Lansburgh v. M.P. Howlett Fish Oyster Co., 153 Md. 312, 319-320, 138 A. 269.

  6. Stevenson v. Lima Locomotive Works

    180 Tenn. 137 (Tenn. 1943)   Cited 9 times

    "The express adoption of the foreign law by the parties has the same effect as adoption by rule of law." Citing Globe Slicing Machine Co. v. Murphy, 161 Md. 667, 158 A., 26, 28. "Where persons residing in different states contract, they can select laws of either state to govern it."

  7. Brehm v. State Roads Commn

    176 Md. 411 (Md. 1939)   Cited 6 times
    In Brehm, the closing of a grade crossing and the substitution of a bridge increased the distance from the plaintiff's farm to the Philadelphia Road by about a mile.

    The grantor must be held to have known that the county commissioners could not covenant against the exercise of the police power or of its discretionary power to change, alter or close, whenever the proper occasion arose, the highway in accordance with the public welfare, safety or convenience. Niland v. Bowron, 193 N.Y. 180, 85 N.E. 1012; Globe Slicing Machine Co., Inc., v. Murphy, 161 Md. 667, 671, 672, 158 A. 26; Williston on Contracts (Revd. Ed.), secs. 615, 626.

  8. Hearn v. Hearn

    177 Md. App. 525 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2007)   Cited 22 times
    Explaining that reformation conforms a document to the "actual mutual intent of the parties"

    It is familiar principle often applied in the cases that" * * * the laws which subsist at the time and place of making a contract enter into and form a part of it, as if they were expressly referred to or incorporated in its terms; and this rule embraces alike those which affect its validity, construction, discharge, and enforcement." Brown v. Smart, 69 Md. 320, 330, [14 A. 468]; Globe Slicing Machine Co., Inc. v. Murphy, 161 Md. 667, 671, 158 A. 26. The Court of Appeals has on numerous occasions applied the principle of contract law that reads into agreements all existing and applicable laws and regulations.

  9. Leaf Co. v. Montgomery County

    70 Md. App. 170 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1987)   Cited 7 times

    One such interpretation of the provision requires only new contracts to be in writing, and does not disturb the enforceability of contracts previously formed or renewals thereof. The appellate courts of this State have consistently repeated the general rule, stated in Globe Slicing Machine Co. v. Murphy, 161 Md. 667, 158 A. 26 (1932), that subsisting laws enter into and form part of the contract as if expressly referred to or incorporated in its terms, including those laws which affect the contract's validity, construction, discharge, and enforcement. McQuillin is equally emphatic on this point: