Watson v. Dorsey

Decision Date16 May 1972
Docket NumberNo. 338,338
Citation265 Md. 509,290 A.2d 530
PartiesRalph WATSON et ux. v. Walter B. DORSEY.
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

Robert W. King, Upper Marlboro (Graydon S. McKee, III, Upper Marlboro, on the brief), for appellants.

Argued Before HAMMOND, C. J., and BARNES, McWILLIAMS, SINGLEY and SMITH, JJ.

HAMMOND, Chief Judge.

On December 16, 1970 the appellants, Ralph Watson and Mary Rose Watson, his wife, sued Walter B. Dorsey, a member of the Bar of Maryland with offices in St. Mary's County, in a case that became Law No. 4884, for damages they suffered as a result of his alleged professional incompetence. It appears that at a trustee's sale in 1962 the Watsons purchased one parcel of land and one Raley et ux., purchased another. The key allegation in the declaration was that Mr. Dorsey was employed to represent the Watsons in an ejectment suit (Raley v. Watson, Law No. 3536) filed against them by the Raleys in the Circuit Court for St. Mary's County and 'in violation of his duty neglected to call certain witnesses and to produce certain evidence at the trial of the aforesaid action (on March 15, 1967), the names of said witnesses and the nature of their testimony having been communicated (by the Watsons to Dorsey), the failure of which resulted in a judgment against (the Watsons), all of which resulted in (the Watsons) suffering a loss of property' valued at $3,500.

It further appeared that the judgment of ejectment in favor of the Raleys was appealed to this Court and that in Watson v. Raley, 250 Md. 266, 242 A.2d 488, submitted on brief by both sides (Dorsey being attorney for the Watsons), the judgment was affirmed on June 3, 1968.

Dorsey pleaded the statute of limitations, that he did not commit the wrong alleged and a special plea outlining the reasons the witnesses suggested by the Watsons, particularly the trustee at the sale in 1962, were not called. Thereafter the Watsons filed in case Law No. 4884 a 'Petition for Declaratory Judgment,' asking a declaration 'as to whether or not the claim herein is barred by the statute of limitations.' A hearing was set and had on the petition, the Watsons' point of view being argued by their lawyer and Mr. Dorsey's point of view being presented in proper person. Judge Loveless decided that limitations began to run on March 15, 1967, the day the trial court gave judgment for the Raleys against the Watsons, and since suit on the malpractice claim was not filed until December 16, 1970, more than three years later, the action was barred by the statute of limitations. This appeal followed.

It should be noted that the road travelled to obtain a ruling on the point of limitations is unusual, to say the least. Maryland Rule 502 a provides for a separate trial of an issue at law 'at any stage of the action' and what was done here was contemplated to be done-and could and should have been done-under Rule 502 a. Nevertheless the declaratory judgment route was followed with the approval of both sides and the court, and it led to the identical terminus that would have been reached if Rule 502 a had been availed of; and we shall decide the case in the posture in which it reached us. 1 The judgment appealed from put the plaintiffs out of court and thus was immediately appealable. Com'rs of Cambridge v. Eastern Shore, etc., Co., 194 Md. 653, 655-656, 72 A.2d 21; Buckler v. Safe Deposit and Trust Co., 115 Md. 222, 80 A. 899.

Code (1957, 1972 Repl.Vol.), Art. 57, § 1, provides in pertinent part that actions based on negligence shall be commenced or sued on 'within three years from the time the cause of action accrued.' Generally, limitations against a right or cause of action begins to run from the date of the wrong and not from the time the wrong is discovered. But in Maryland in cases of professional malpractice the cases have established the 'discovery rule'-the rule that the cause of action accrues when the claimant discovers or reasonably should have discovered that he has been wronged. This Court has not, however, been willing to extend the period of limitations to the extent the so-called 'maturation of harm' rule would extend it. See Leonhart v. Atkinson, Md., 289 A.2d 1 (decided April 4, 1972), in which the background of the discovery rule and the cases which have applied it to various professional malpractice actions are discussed.

In the case before us the Watsons say that their right of action accrued when the Court of Appeals affirmed the Raley ejectment judgment against them on June 3, 1968, and that their suit against Dorsey was filed within three years of that date, on December 16, 1970. In our view, Judge Loveless was correct in holding that the Watsons' cause of action accrued when they lost the ejectment case in the trial court on March 15, 1967. It is clear to us that the nature of the Watsons' complaint against Dorsey makes it plain that they must be charged with knowledge that they had been wronged as soon as the ejectment case was decided against them. They felt that certain...

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 cases
  • Harig v. Johns-Manville Products Corp.
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 21 Noviembre 1978
    ...rule," previously recognized in Maryland, but heretofore limited to cases of professional malpractice. 1 See, e. g., Watson v. Dorsey, 265 Md. 509, 290 A.2d 530 (1972); Leonhart v. Atkinson, 265 Md. 219, 289 A.2d 1 (1972); Steelworkers Holding Co. v. Menefee, 255 Md. 440, 258 A.2d 177 (1969......
  • Catler v. Arent Fox, LLP
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 3 Septiembre 2013
    ...of action accrues when the claimant discovers or reasonably should have discovered that he has been wronged.” 28Watson v. Dorsey, 265 Md. 509, 512, 290 A.2d 530 (1972). In the case of Moreland v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 152 Md.App. 288, 831 A.2d 1091 (2003), we said that: [w]hen a caus......
  • Frederick Road Ltd. Partnership v. Brown & Sturm
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 1 Septiembre 1997
    ...that in Lutheran Hospital this Court correctly applied the discovery rule in the medical malpractice context). Watson v. Dorsey, 265 Md. 509, 513, 290 A.2d 530 (1972), is instructive. There, the appellants' legal malpractice claim centered on the attorney's failure to call certain witnesses......
  • Volkman v. Hanover Invs., Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 25 Noviembre 2015
    ...action will be decided in pending actions, it is inappropriate to grant a declaratory judgment." Id. (citing Watson v. Dorsey, 265 Md. 509, 512 n. 1, 290 A.2d 530 (1972) ). Further, the Court determined that it would be inherently unfair to permit Transamerica to monopolize not only its lit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT