Jacobs Instrument Co. v. Comptroller of State of Md., 91
| Decision Date | 17 April 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 91,91 |
| Citation | 216 Md. 290,140 A.2d 285 |
| Parties | JACOBS INSTRUMENT CO., etc. v. COMPTROLLER OF The STATE OF MARYLAND. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Donald H. Jacobs, in pro. per.
Theodore C. Waters, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen (C. Ferdinand Sybert, Atty. Gen., and E. F. Engelbert, Counsel, Retail Sales Tax. Div., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
The appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal is granted, the appellant to pay the costs. Maryland Rule 835, subd. b(5), provides that an appeal may be dismissed when the contents of the record extract do not comply with Rule 828, subd. b. The latter rule requires that the record extract must contain 'such parts of the record as may reasonably be necessary for the determination of the questions presented by the appeal,' including so much of the evidence, pleadings and other parts of the record as is material to the questions to be determined when a determination thereof depends upon the sufficiency of the evidence, pleadings or other matter to sustain the order of the lower court. The appellant made no effort to comply with Rule 828, subd. c, despite efforts on the part of the appellee to reach an agreement as to the contents of the printed extract, and printed only (i) the opinion of the lower court, (ii) two paragraphs of the petition to appeal to the lower court from the finding of the Comptroller, and (iii) a one sentence paragraph from the transcript consisting of the sixth article of the contract between the Department of the Navy and the appellant. The record extract is patently insufficient for a determination of the numerous questions raised by the appeal.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Jacobs
...with the government contract. See Jacobs v. Tawes, D.C., 151 F.Supp. 770, affirmed 4 Cir., 250 F.2d 611; Jacobs Instrument Co. v. Comptroller, 216 Md. 290, 140 A.2d 285. In February, 1958, the Fourth Circuit granted leave to Jacobs to move to reopen his case in this court for the purpose of......
-
United States v. Jacobs, 8311.
...v. Tawes, D.C.Md., 151 F.Supp. 770, aff'd. 4 Cir., 250 F.2d 611; Jacobs v. United States, 4 Cir., 252 F.2d 296; Jacobs Instrument Co. v. Comptroller, 216 Md. 290, 140 A.2d 285; United States v. Jacobs, D.C.Md., 187 F.Supp. The judgment in the original case, brought by the United States to o......
-
Arundel Asphalt Products, Inc. v. Morrison-Johnson, Inc.
...although the record is too meager to permit the determination of some of the points raised, compare Jacobs Instrument Co. v. Comptroller, 216 Md. 290, 140 A.2d 285 (1958) with El-Masri v. State, 228 Md. 114, 178 A.2d 407 (1962), we have chosen to deal with the questions to the extent that w......
-
Prime Contractors, Inc. v. City of Baltimore, 50
...an appellant's record extract or appendix was patently insufficient for a determination of the questions raised. Jacobs Instr. Co. v. Comptroller, 216 Md. 290, 140 A.2d 285; Newark Trust Co. v. Trimble, 215 Md. 502, 506, 138 A.2d 919; McBurnie v. McBurnie, 214 Md. 210, 214, 134 A.2d 78; Gmu......