Buschman v. Morling
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas. This action was instituted by the appellant, to recover certain money which he claimed to be due to him by the appellee. The declaration contained the usual money counts, to which tbe defendant pleaded, “ never was indebted as alleged,” and “ never promised as alleged.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas. This action was instituted by the appellant, to recover certain money which he claimed to be due to him by the appellee. The declaration contained the usual money counts, to which tbe defendant pleaded, “ never was indebted as alleged,” and “ never promised as alleged.” The following exceptions were taken in tbe Court of Common Pleas by the plaintiff: First Exception: — The plaintiff, not having asked the clerk to call his witnesses, stated to the Court that he had issued a subpoena duces team for a witness, for certain papers that he would need in the…
1Opinion of the CourtStewabt, J.
We are unable to perceive in what way the appellant’s legal rights were affected, in the smallest degree, by the refusal of the Court below, in the first exception, to ask the witness, then in Court, if he had brought with him the papers *390he was required to produce, under the subpcma duces tecum. Beyond all question, the Court was not obliged to grant this extraordinary request of the appellant’s attorney; but according to its discretion, had the right to refuse it. Such refusal afforded no ground whatever for exception.
The second, third, fourth and fifth exceptions may be considered together.
W…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Davis v. CalvertCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1833
- Haney v. MarshallCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1856
- de Lizardi v. CohenCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1845
3Cited by1 opinion
- Carlin v. BiddisonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1920