Benson v. Davis's Adm'r
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from Montgomery county court. This Was ah action' on the case, brought to March-term 1820. At that term the defendant, (the appellee’s intestate,)- appeared, and a rule was laid on the plaintiff, (now appellant,) to-file his declaration, and. he had until the first Monday of the next term to do so.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Montgomery county court. This Was ah action' on the case, brought to March-term 1820. At that term the defendant, (the appellee’s intestate,)- appeared, and a rule was laid on the plaintiff, (now appellant,) to-file his declaration, and. he had until the first Monday of the next term to do so. At .the ne'xt term, (November 1820, ) the plaintiff had further leave to declare until the first Monday of March term 1821.- At that term the plaintiff did declare, and a rule was laid on the defendant to plead by the first Monday of the November term 1821. At that term the record states,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Martin, J.
If there are any rules of practice In Montgomery county court, that justify the procedure in this case, they ought to have appeared in the record.
In their absence, we cannot conceive upon what principle the judgment of non pros, was entered.
In this case it appears the plaintiff was ruled to file his declaration by the first Monday in March 1821. On this day the March term commenced, and must have been continued or adjourned to the following May, for we find the declaration was filed on the 18th of May, and a rule laid on the defendant to…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Hughes v. JacksonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1858
- Vogel v. GrantCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1984
- Stockett v. SasscerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1855
- Dunbar v. ConwayCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1839
- Kunkel v. SpoonerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1856
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.