Elkton Supply Co. v. Stubbiles

• Decision Date: 04 December 1941
• Docket Number: 69.
• Citation: 23 A.2d 3,180 Md. 97
• Parties: ELKTON SUPPLY CO. v. STUBBILES et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

23 A.2d 3

180 Md. 97

ELKTON SUPPLY CO. v. STUBBILES et al.

No. 69.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

December 4, 1941

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cecil County; James F. Evans, Judge.

Suit in ejectment by Freida W. Stubbiles and William W. Stubbiles her husband, against the Elkton Supply Company. From a verdict for defendant providing for equal division of costs between plaintiffs and defendant, the defendant appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

James W. Hughes, of Elkton, for appellant.

Henry A. Warburton, of Elkton, and J. Albert Roney, Jr., of Perryville, for appellees.

Argued before SLOAN, JOHNSON, DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, FORSYTHE, and MARBURY, JJ.

FORSYTHE Judge.

Freida W. Stubbiles and William W. Stubbiles, her husband, filed a suit in ejectment in the Circuit Court for Cecil County against The Elkton Supply Company, a corporation. The case came on for trial, and the court, sitting without a jury rendered a verdict for the defendant, The Elkton Supply Company.

The exact form of the verdict, as it appears in the record, in this appeal is, 'Verdict of the Court is for the Defendant. Costs to be equally divided between the Plaintiffs and Defendant.'

The appellant, defendant below, appealed 'from the judgment of the Court directing it to pay one-half of the costs.' The record contains nothing but the docket entries, and certificates of the clerk of the court, that the docket entries are true copies.

From the record, the question at once arises, whether the appeal can be entertained. It has long been the wellsettled rule that an appeal cannot be taken from a verdict only, but must be from a final judgment, duly entered by the court. Until a final judgment has been entered this court has no jurisdiction to hear the case on appeal. Smith v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 168 Md. 89, 91, 176 A. 642; Miller v. West, 165 Md. 245, 167 A. 696; Newbold v. Green, 122 Md. 648, 90 A. 513; Cunningham v. Board of School Com'rs of Carroll County, 93 Md. 738, 48 A. 1046; Hayman v. Lambden, 97 Md. 33, 54 A. 962; Smithson v. United States Telegraph Co., 29 Md. 162; 2 Am.Jur. p. 686, sec. 30 and note 6.

In conformity to that rule the appeal in this case must be dismissed.

The appellant appealed only from the imposition upon it of one-half of the costs. Under the circumstances, it may be proper for us to re-state the fixed rule, in reference to the payment of costs in cases tried in courts of law. If is, that the...