Mears v. Adreon
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas. This was an action of attachment brought by the appellees against the appellant, to the May Term, 1867, of the Court of Common Pleas. The defendant was returned 11 non esl,” and the attachment was returned “ attached as per schedule,” the property described in the schedule being the interest of the defendant in a lot of ground in the city of Baltimore.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas. This was an action of attachment brought by the appellees against the appellant, to the May Term, 1867, of the Court of Common Pleas. The defendant was returned 11 non esl,” and the attachment was returned “ attached as per schedule,” the property described in the schedule being the interest of the defendant in a lot of ground in the city of Baltimore. At the return day. of the' attachment, judgment of condemnation against the property attached was entered by the Court, after which no further proceedings were had, until the 22d of September, 1868, when a…
1Opinion of the CourtBartol, C. J.
The decisions in Bruce & Fisher vs. Cook, 6 G. & J., 345, and Boarman vs. Israel & Patterson, 1 Gill, 372, are conclusive of the question as to the right of this Court, on the present appeal, to examine the proceedings in attachment upon which the judgment was rendered, and to determine whether the requirements of the law essential to the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunals have been complied with. It was said by Judge Dorsey, in Boarman vs. Israel: “Where a sjoeeial limited jurisdiction, distinct from and not embraced by its general jurisdiction, is conferred by Act of Assembly on any…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Boarman v. PattersonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1843
- Lee v. TingesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1854
- Dawson v. John A. Brown & Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1841
- Bruce v. CookCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1834
- Dean v. OppenheimerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1866
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Consolidated Construction Services, Inc. v. SimpsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
- Bragunier Masonry Contractors, Inc. v. Catholic University of AmericaCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
- Coward v. DillingerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1881
- United States Express Co. v. HurlockCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1913
- Burrier v. Cunningham Piano Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1919
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.