Arteno v. Arteno
Decision Date | 05 March 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 270,270 |
Citation | 262 A.2d 493,257 Md. 227 |
Parties | Walter P. ARTENO v. Rose ARTENO. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Robert J. Flynn, Upper Marlboro, for appellant.
Martin H. Freeman, Upper Marlboro (Sasscer, Clagett, Powers & Channing, Upper Marlboro, on the brief), for appellee.
Before HAMMOND, C. J., and McWILLIAMS, FINAN, SINGLEY and SMITH, JJ.
On June 21, 1967, the parties to this proceeding, then being husband and wife, entered into an agreement providing for certain payments to be made to the wife 'for support and maintenance of herself and the infant children of the marriage', the children being described in the agreement as 17 and 15 years of age. When payments were not made in accordance with what she understood to be the terms of the agreement, the wife instituted an action at law in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County to recover the alleged arrearages. She also prayed for a declaratory judgment.
On August 15, 1969, Chief Judge Digges, after an earlier argument on motion for summary judgment, passed an order entering judgment in the amount of $3943.66 in favor of the wife against the husband. In the same order he denied the motion for summary judgment under the sixth count which had prayed for the declaratory judgment stating, '(T)he claim therein to be litigated as permitted by law.' The matter relative to declaratory judgment was heard on September 4 before Judge Meloy. The docket entry states:
'Order and Oral Opinion to be transcribed by Reporter and submitted to the Court for signature.'
On September 10 the husband filed a motion 'to revise the Judgment obtained * * * on September 4, 1969'. On September 12 he entered an appeal to this Court. The oral opinion of the court given on September 4 was signed and filed on September 15.
We do not consider appeals on a piecemeal basis. In Silverman v. National Life Ins. Co., 255 Md. 148, 150 257 A.2d 156 (1969), we quoted from Maryland Rule 605 a which provides in pertinent part:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shipp v. Autoville Ltd.
...A. & A. Masonry v. Polinger, 259 Md. 199, 269 A.2d 566; when there was no final judgment under Rule 605 (Multiple Claims-Judgment Upon) Arteno v. Arteno, 257 Md. 227, 262 A.2d 493; Lang v. Catterton, supra. The rationale of the action of the Court of Appeals in dismissing the appeals was th......
-
Harford Sands, Inc. v. Levitt & Sons, Inc., 630
...v. Miller, supra, 266 Md. at 555-556, 295 A.2d at 473; Lang v. Catterton, 267 Md. 268, 272, 297 A.2d 735 (1972); Arteno v. Arteno, 257 Md. 227, 228, 262 A.2d 493 (1970); Harkins v. August, 251 Md. 108, 111, 246 A.2d 268 (1968); Schlossberg v. Schlossberg, 22 Md.App. 527, 535, 323 A.2d 708 (......
-
Johnson v. Assured Employment, Inc.
...v. May, 201 So.2d 683 (La.App.1967); Hudson Building Supply Company v. Stulman, 258 Md. 304, 265 A.2d 925 (1970); Arteno v. Arteno, 257 Md. 227, 262 A.2d 493 (1970); Bouldin v. Bruce M. Bernard, Inc., 78 N.M. 188, 429 P.2d 647 (1967); McClellen v. Thompson, R.I., 333 A.2d 424, 428 (1975); I......
-
Moritz v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 394
...Co., 260 Md. 142, 144, 271 A.2d 688 (1970); Picking v. State Finance Corp., 257 Md. 554, 556, 263 A.2d 572 (1970); Arteno v. Arteno, 257 Md. 227, 229, 262 A.2d 493 (1970); Harlow v. Blocher, Adm'r, 257 Md. 1, 3, 262 A.2d 58 (1970); Schafer v. Bernstein, 256 Md. 218, 221, 260 A.2d 57 (1969);......