Brooks v. Ford Motor Credit Co.

Citation274 A.2d 345,261 Md. 278
Decision Date08 March 1971
Docket NumberNo. 354,354
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland

Page 278

261 Md. 278
274 A.2d 345
Clifton G. BROOKS
No. 354.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
March 8, 1971.

Page 279

Lawrence B. Coshnear, Baltimore, for appellant.

Robert J. Thieblot, Baltimore (Donald C. Allen and Allen, Thieblot & Alexander, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.



This controversy stems from a simple transaction which took place in October, 1965, when the appellant Brooks bought a used Ford sedan from Archway Motors, Inc. (Archway). Brooks says that Archway's salesman represented that Archway would maintain collision insurance on the [274 A.2d 346] car, although the installment sales contract, which contains elaborate provisions regarding insurance, carries the word 'none' on the line 'Total Amount Included for Insurance.' Archway assigned the sales contract to Ford Motor Credit Company (Ford). Brooks made 10 monthly payments of $57.58 each to Ford, but stopped in August, 1966, when the car was involved in an accident. Ford sued Brooks for the balance due on the contract together with the attorney's fee. Brooks defended the suit, primarily on the ground that a provision of the sales contract contravened Code (1957, 1969 Repl.Vol.) Art. 83, § 130(e). 1 Brooks then impleaded Archway,

Page 280

alleging that any recovery which Ford might achieve would be in consequence of Archway's alleged misrepresentation. Summary judgment was entered in Ford's favor, and Brooks has appealed.

This case poses an interesting question which we have heretofore considered only obliquely in cases involving multiple parties or multiple claims, Tedrow v. Ford Motor Co., 260 Md. 142, 271 A.2d 688 (1970); Picking v. State Finance Corp., 257 Md. 554, 263 A.2d 572 (1970); Parish v. Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers Ass'n, Inc., 250 Md. 24, 242 A.2d 512 (1968): May a defendant in an action in which he is also a third-party plaintiff appeal from a judgment entered against him while the third-party claim is still pending?

Code (1957, 1968 Repl.Vol.) Art. 5, § 1 provides: 'Any party may appeal to the Court of Appeals from any final judgment or determination of a court of law in any civil suit or action * * *.' We have consistently held that appeals will lie only from final judgments which settle the rights of the parties or conclude the cause, Tvardek v. Tvardek, 257 Md. 88, 261 A.2d 762 (1970); Hillyard Constr. Co. v. Lynch, 256 Md. 375, 260 A.2d 316 (1970). We may, proprio muto, dismiss an appeal for cause, Maryland Rule 835 a 2; Harkins v. August, 251 Md. 108, 246 A.2d 268 (1968).


To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Soper v. Kahn, Civ. A. No. M-83-1011.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • July 22, 1983 separate and independent from a main claim. E.g., Rule 315 of the Maryland Rules of Procedure. See Brooks v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 261 Md. 278, 281, 274 A.2d 345 (1971) (Maryland impleader rule modeled after Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). But cf. Powell, Inc. v. Abney......
  • Appiah v. Hall, 2730 Sept.Term, 2007.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • December 31, 2008
    ...must be dismissed as prematurely taken, since ... the [summary] judgment remain[s][] interlocutory." Brooks v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 261 Md. 278, 282, 274 A.2d 345 (1971). See also County Com'rs for St. Mary's County v. Lacer, 393 Md. 415, 426, 903 A.2d 378 (2006) (holding that partial sum......
  • Berman v. Karvounis, 75
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1986
    ...Thus the 12 prior actions simply have not terminated as to the claim or claims included in them. See Brooks v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 261 Md. 278, 274 A.2d 345 (1971); Harlow v. Boucher, 257 Md. 1, 262 A.2d 58 (1970); Silverman v. National Life Ins. Co., 255 Md. 148, 257 A.2d 156 (1969); Ha......
  • Snowden v. Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co., 144
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1983
    ...267 Md. 268, 297 A.2d 735 (1972); Moritz v. Church Of Jesus Christ, 266 Md. 220, 222, 292 A.2d 84 (1972); Brooks v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 261 Md. 278, 274 A.2d 345 (1971); Tedrow v. Ford Motor Co., 260 Md. 142, 271 A.2d 688 (1970); Picking v. State Finance Co., 257 Md. 554, 557-558, 263 A.......
  • 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