Cooper v. Novickow
| Decision Date | 15 November 1911 |
| Parties | COOPER v. NOVICKOW. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Baltimore City Court; James P. Gorter, Judge.
Action by Morris Novickow against Anna Cooper. From an order of the Baltimore city court overruling a motion to quash the proceedings begun before a justice of the peace and resulting in a judgment for plaintiff for the restitution of premises and for rent due, defendant appeals. Dismissed.
Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, PEARCE, THOMAS, PATTISON URNER, and STOCKBRIDGE, JJ.
Horton S. Smith and Israel S. Gomborov, for appellant.
Linwood L. Clark, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order of the Baltimore city court overruling a motion to quash the proceedings in the cause. The case was commenced by a complaint filed by the appellee against the appellant before a justice of the peace of the city of Baltimore, by which the appellee sought to have again and repossess the premises known as fish stall No. 504 Belair Market; he claiming that there was due and unpaid $988 of rent for the same. A judgment was entered in favor of the appellee for the restitution of the premises and $988 rent found due. The appellant appealed to the Baltimore city court, but we suppose no bond was given to stay execution of the judgment, as the record shows that a warrant was issued directed to a constable ordering him to cause the lessor to have again and repossess the premises by putting him or his duly qualified agent or attorney in possession thereof, and the constable's return was, "Property turned over to the plaintiff." The proceedings were instituted under section 650, etc., of article 4 of Code of Public Local Laws as re-enacted by Laws 1898, c. 123.
The reasons assigned in the motion to quash are based mainly on the alleged ground that the justice of the peace and the Baltimore city court were without jurisdiction, but it is clear that no appeal could be taken to this court until final judgment, and then, of course, only on the ground that the justice and the Baltimore city court had no jurisdiction. It may be that, after the court had overruled the motion to quash, it would have decided the case, or at least some of the material points, in favor of the appellant, but, whether that be so or not, there is no authority for an appeal from such an order without some final disposition of the case having been made in the lower court. The record fails to show there was such, and it was admitted at the hearing...
To continue reading
Request your trial