Clark v. Digges
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from Charles County Court. On the 16th August, 1843, the appellant sued out a writ of scire facias, as follows, viz: “ Charles County, to wit : The State of Maryland to the Sheriff of Charles County, greeting: Whereas, at a county court begun and held at Port Tobacco, in and for Charles county aforesaid, on the third Monday in August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, a certain Abraham Clark, by the judgment of the same court,…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Charles County Court. On the 16th August, 1843, the appellant sued out a writ of scire facias, as follows, viz: “ Charles County, to wit : The State of Maryland to the Sheriff of Charles County, greeting: Whereas, at a county court begun and held at Port Tobacco, in and for Charles county aforesaid, on the third Monday in August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, a certain Abraham Clark, by the judgment of the same court, recovered against a certain Robert Digges, late of Charles county, yeoman, as well the sum of twelve thousand dollars, penalty,…
1Opinion of the CourtArcher, C. J.
Two reasons are assigned for the motion to quash the scire facias.
1. Because the judgment upon which it issued is an interlocutory judgment, and
2. Because the appellant had no right to prosecute a scire facias.
In answer to the first reason, it may be remarked, that if the judgment was interlocutory, the appellee could avail himself of the objection on a plea of nul tiel record. The motion to quash the writ, in this case, was not an appropriate remedy, The writ of sci. fa. is not defective on its face, but states a good judgment.
But again, it is not an interlocutory judgment. The judgment is…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Schultze v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1875
- McKnew v. DuvallCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1877
- Huston v. DittoCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1863
- Hall v. ClagettCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1885