Case Name: FURNESS, WITHY & COMPANY, Ltd., A Corporation, vs. JOHN T. FAHEY, Trading as John T. Fahey & Company
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1914-06-26
Citations: 124 Md. 110
Docket Number: 
Parties: FURNESS, WITHY & COMPANY, Ltd., A Corporation, vs. JOHN T. FAHEY, Trading as John T. Fahey & Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Maryland Reports
Volume: 124
Pages: 110–110

Head Matter:
FURNESS, WITHY & COMPANY, Ltd., A Corporation, vs. JOHN T. FAHEY, Trading as John T. Fahey & Company.
Decided June 26th, 1914.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City. (Bond, J.)
The cause was argued before Boyd, C. J., Burke, Thomas, Urner and Stookbridge, JJ.
John» B. Doming (with a brief by Whiteloclc, Demmg & Kemp), for the appellants.
Robert E. Lee Marshall (with whom was Arthur George Brown, on the brief), for the appellees.

Opinion:
Stockbridge, J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The questions of law presented by this appeal are identical with those considered in the. case of Furness, Withy & Co. v. Blanchard Randall et al., ante p. 101. The only points of difference are, that three contracts, dated, respectively, September 21st, 23rd and October 4th, 1911, are here involved instead of one. The notice or "nomination" sent on December 2nd, designating the Amana as the vessel on which the shipments were -to be carried, bore upon its face the approval of Fahey & Co. The pleadings, evidence and rulings were simply a repetition of those in the case of Gill & Fisher, and for the reasons there given the judgment appealed from will be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a neiu trial, appellees to pay costs.