O'Donnell v. State

• Court: Maryland Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: [188 Md. 699]PER CURIAM.
• Citation: O'Donnell v. State, 188 Md. 693, 54 A.2d 315 (Md. 1947)
• Decision Date: 21 July 1947
• Docket Number: 160.
• Parties: O'DONNELL et al. v. STATE.

54 A.2d 315

188 Md. 693

O'DONNELL et al. v. STATE.

No. 160.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

July 21, 1947

On motion for reargument.

Motion denied.

For former opinion, see 53 A.2d 688.

Robert W. McCullough, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Allan H. Murrell, Asst. State's Atty., of Baltimore (Hall Hammond, Atty. Gen., and J. Bernard Wells, State's Atty of Baltimore on the brief), for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant O'Donnell has filed a motion for reargument, and, as one of his grounds, states that his counsel did not appear at the argument 'inasmuch as he was under the belief that the Clerk would notify him of the date of the hearing on said appeal.' In view of this statement, we file this memorandum.

It is incumbent on counsel to follow the assignment of cases. If counsel are not present when their cases are called, and no seasonable request for postponement has been made, the cases must be taken as submitted on brief. There is no rule of court requiring the Clerk to notify counsel when cases are in the assignment. The assignment is published each day, and as a matter of courtesy to counsel and of convenience to them the Clerk also tries to telephone at least one counsel on each side. In this case, appellants were represented by separate counsel, but they filed a joint brief and there were no apparent differences in their positions on appeal. The Clerk did not notify the nonresident counsel who represented O'Donnell. When the...