| Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 213 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
McKIM AND KENNEDY VS. MASON. 213 according to the 16th section of the Act of Assembly., It is not for this Court in this collateral way to deprive them of the benefit of their judgments, so far as the parties are concerned who did appear, or were warned to appear in the County Court to assert their rights in opposition to them? But when, having themselves excused the sheriff from giving the public notice by advertisement in the newspapers, as directed by the 17th section of the law, they seek, nevertheless, to occlude all parties, they seek to do that which must strike every mind as manifestly and flagrantly unjust. So far as relates to par- ties who have no notice, actual or constructive, the judgment, in the language of the authority quoted, is " an arbitrary edict, not to be regarded anywhere as the judgment of a Court." It has been urged by the counsel for the Messrs. Denmead, that the proper remedy would be by appeal to the Court of Appeals; but, according to my view of the matter, it is ex- tremely doubtful whether an appeal in this case would lie at the instance of the Bank, as I apprehend none but parties to the judgment or decree appealed from have the right of appeal, and it is very certain that under' the -provisions of the Act of 1836, ch. 200, the execution of each judgment or decree can- not be stayed or delayed, unless the person or persons agaiast whom it was rendered or passed, &c., shall give bond. But surely it cannot, with any propriety, be said that these judgments were rendered against the .Bank of Baltimore or regarding the proceeding in rem, or quasi in rem, that they were adjudications affecting the Bank's title to the property, when it had no notice, either actual or constructive, and hence I infer that should the Bank appeal, it would be told in the Appellate Court, you are no party in any way to this pro- ceeding, nor are your rights involved in it, and therefore yon have no title to bring the record for review before the Court; I am, therefore, relieved from the necessity of considering Whether the principle settled by the Court of Appeals in Shivers vs. Wilson, 5 H. & J., 130, is applicable to this cage. The con- clusion to which I have come is, that the judgments, though Vol. Ill.—16 |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
| Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 213 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