Hudson Bldg. Supply Co. v. Stulman
| Decision Date | 03 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 281,281 |
| Citation | 258 Md. 304,265 A.2d 925 |
| Parties | HUDSON BUILDING SUPPLY COMPANY, Inc. v. Leonard STULMAN et al. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
J. M. Dryden Hall, Jr., and Phillip M. Sutley, Baltimore (Baldwin, Jarman & Norris, Baltimore, on the brief) for appellant.
W. Lee Harrison, and John Grason Turnbull, II, Towson, for appellees Leonard Stulman and others.
No brief filed on behalf of appellee George W. Willison.
Argued before HAMMOND, C. J., and McWILLIAMS, FINAN, SINGLEY, SMITH and DIGGES, JJ.
Judge MacDaniel determined the credibility of various witnesses and, weighing their testimony, decided that Hudson Building Supply Company, Inc., the appellant, was estopped to claim the mechanics' lien on the property of Stulman, appellee, it had sought below to perfect. He said in an opinion filed on August 6, 1969:
'The Court feels that all of the elements and facts of an equitable estoppel are present in this particular case and that Hudson is estopped because of its actions of enforcing a Mechanics' Lien against Stulman.
'* * * The attorneys for Stulman are hereby directed to draw the necessary Order to carry out the terms of this opinion and to present it to the Court for signature.'
Hudson filed an appeal two days later. On August 15, a week later, a copy of the proposed decree was sent Judge MacDaniel by counsel for Stulman and a copy of the forwarding letter and of the proposed decree was sent to Hudson's counsel. On August 18, 1969, Judge MacDaniel signed the proposed decree dismissing the bill to enforce the mechanics' lien.
The docket entries printed in appellant's record extract end with these two items:
'August 8, 1969-Mr. Clerk: Enter an Appeal to the Court of Appeals on behalf of Hudson Building Supply Company, Inc., Plaintiff, from the judgment entered in this action on August 4, 1969, by J. M. Dryden Hall, Jr. Atty. for Plaintiff, with certificate of mailing, fd.'
The docket entries in the transcript go on to recite:
'8-18-69 Order of Court fd.'
'9-2-69 Motion & Order extending time for transmission of Record on Appeal, fd.'
We were told at the argument and it is fully apparent that no final judgment had been entered when the appeal was filed on August 8, 1969. Such a judgment was not entered until ten days later and no appeal was thereafter filed. Under the circumstances, there is no valid appeal before us. We made clear once again the reasons for this in McCann v. McGinnis, Md., 263 A.2d 536, 539, when we said:
'This Court has had occasion to comment several times recently relative to attempted appeals from opinions. See Suitland Dev. Corp. v. Merchants Mort., 254 Md. 43, 53-56, 254 A.2d 359 (1969); Mattingly v. Houston, 252 Md. 590, 593, 250 A.2d 633 (1969); Hayman, Adm'r v. Messick, 252 Md. 384, 388, 249 A.2d 695 (1969); Ballan v. Ballan, 251 Md. 737, 743, 248 A.2d 871 (1969); Bell v. Shifflett, 249 Md. 104, 105-106, 238 A.2d 533 (1968); Kennedy v. Foley, Receiver, 240 Md. 615, 214 A.2d 815 (1965). The reasoning behind this is fully explained in Miller Equity Procedure, § 260 (1897), where, under the heading 'Distinction between opinion and decree', it is said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Popham v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.
...665, 299 A.2d 1, 3-4 (1973); Alberstadt v. Alberstadt, 257 Md. 552, 553, 263 A.2d 535, 535-36 (1970); Hudson Building Supply Company v. Stulman, 258 Md. 304, 307, 265 A.2d 925, 926 (1970). When the court entered final judgment, taking the action challenged by one side, but urged by the othe......
-
Poffenberger v. Risser
...correct. It matters not what reasons are given in a court's opinion so long as its judgment is correct. Cf. Hudson Bldg. Supply Co. v. Stulman, 258 Md. 304, 265 A.2d 925 (1970). Applying the general rule that the statute begins to run from the date of the wrong, summary judgment was properl......
- Berman v. Gurwicz
- Equitable Trust Co. v. G & M CONST. CORP.