Rutherford v. Pope
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas. An action of assumpsit was brought, on the 3rd of December 1857, by the appellant, the endorsee, against the appellees, executors of Wm.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas. An action of assumpsit was brought, on the 3rd of December 1857, by the appellant, the endorsee, against the appellees, executors of Wm. Gardner the maker of a promissory note for $361, The defendants were summoned but did not appear, and a judgment by default for want of a plea was entered on the 11th of June 1858, and on the 21st of the same month, the note, protest and affidavit of the planliff having been filed, the judgment was extended by the court for $394.61 and costs. Afterwards, during the same term of the court, to wit, on the 11th of August…
1Opinion of the CourtLe Grand, C. J.
The motion, in this case, to dismiss the appeal, must prevail. There is nothing in the record which can be relied upon by this court to show what are the rules of the court of Common Pleas, applicable to its action in the premises. It is true, the appellant’s counsel, in what he terms his exceptions, has set out certain rules as those of that court, but they are not certified to as such by the judge, or otherwise, and of course cannot be taken as such by this court.
The record shows that the motion to strike out the judgment was made during the sa,me term at which it was rendered. Until the…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Burnside v. EnnisIndiana Supreme Court · 1873
- Loney v. BaileyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1875
- Craig v. WrothCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1877
- State Ex Rel. Scruggs v. Baltimore Transit Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1939
- Gross v. Wood Ex Rel. WoodCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1912
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.