| Volume 194, Page 286 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
286 11 H. 4, CAP. 3, AMENDMENTS. Raney, 77 Md. 321; Snowden v. Preston, 73 Md. 261; Siewerd v. Farnen, 71 Md. 627; Sprigg v. State, 54 Md. 469; Rust v. Lynch, 54 Md. 636; Smith v. Black, 51 Md. 247; Abell v. Simon, 49 Md. 318; McCormick v. Hogan, 48 Md. 404; Craig v. Wroth, 47 Md. 281; Sarlouis v. Ins. Co., 45 Md. 241; Tiernan v. Hammond, 41 Md. 548; Post v. Bowen, 35 Md. 232; Hall v. Holmes, 30 Md. 558; Dorsey v. Kyle, 30 Md. 512. An ex parte affidavit of the applicant will not be sufficient. Geesey v. Stouch, 94 Md. 75; Foran v. Johnson, 58 Md. 144. For examples of judgments struck out because defendant was not sum- moned, see Taylor v. Welslager, 90 Md. 409, 414; Pattison v. Hughes, 80 Md. 559; Coulbourn v. Fleming, 78 Md. 210; Heaps v. Hoopes, 68 Md. 383; Abell v. Simon, 49 Md. 318; German v. Slade, 42 Md. 510; because the judg- ment was entered by a deputy clerk without authority from the judge, see Lee v. Carrollton Asso., 58 Md. 301; because the obtention of the judgment was made possible by the error of the clerk in filing pleas in the wrong suit, see May v. Wolvington, 69 Md. 117. A judgment will not, however, be set aside for unimportant clerical errors. Acklen v. Fink, 95 Md. 655; Charles Co. v. Mandanyohl, 93 Md. 150; Bond v. Citizens Bank, Go Md. 498; Ecker v. First Bank, 62 Md. 519; First Bank v. Weckler, 52 Md. 30; Post v. Bowen, 35 Md. 232. Imposition of term*.—In striking out a judgment, the court may impose terms on the defendant, as that he shall not plead limitations, Merrick v. R. R. Co., 33 Md. 485; or that, in the case of a non-resident defendant who has not been summoned, he shall enter an appearance in the suit, Coulbourn v. Fleming, 78 Md. 210; or that the defendant shall pay into court a sufficient sum of money to meet a future judgment in case the plaintiff succeeds. Heaps v. Hoops, 68 Md. 383; or that the lien of the original judgment shall be preserved to secure the plaintiff from loss should he afterwards recover at a trial on the merits. Tyrrell v. Hilton, 92 Md. 176. Right of appeal.—Plaintiff may appeal only where judgment is stricken out on motion made after the term . Defendant may appeal from an order overruling a motion to strike out a judgment, whether his motion is made during or after the term. It is the time when the motion is made, not the time when it is decided, which determines the right. State v. Butler, 72 Md. 98; Sloan v. Locust Point Co., 71 Md. 335; Preston v. McCann, 77 Md. 30; McLaughlin v. Ogle, 53 Md. 610; Walsh v. State, 53 Md. 539; Smith v. Black, 51 Md. 247; Craig v. Wroth, 47 Md. 281; Merrick v. R. R. Co., 33 Md. 481; King v. Hicks, 32 Md. 460; Townshend v. Chew, 31 Md. 247; Hall v. Holmes, 30 Md. 558. Cf. Huntington v. Emery, 74 Md. 67; Laflin Co. v. R. R. Co., 63 Md. 76; Wainwright v. Wilkinson, 62 Md. 146; Johnson v. Lemmon, 37 Md. 336; Powhatan Co. v. Potomac Co., 36 Md. 238; State v. Steibel, 31 Md. 34. Under the Act of 1886, ch. 184 (Balto. City Code, secs. 317, 318) the period of thirty days is substituted or adopted for the law courts of Balti- more in lieu of the ordinary term within which the judgment, or action of the court in relation thereto, remains under the control of the court, as was the case under previous practice in regard to the term. Preston v. McCann, 77 Md. 30; Laubheimer v. Johnson, 98 Md. 685. After a judg- ment has become enrolled by the lapse of thirty days under sec. 317, supra, |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Alexander's British statutes in force in Maryland. 2d ed., 1912
| Volume 194, Page 286 View pdf image (33K) |
|
Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!
|
An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact
mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.
Maryland State Archives