Meyer v. Steuart

• Decision Date: 26 March 1878
• Citation: 48 Md. 423
• Parties: FREDERICK C. MEYER v. CHARLES C. STEUART, Trustee, and HELEN STEUART, and others. CHARLES C. STEUART, Trustee, and HELEN STEUART, and others v. FREDERICK C. MEYER.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

48 Md. 423

FREDERICK C. MEYER v. CHARLES C. STEUART, Trustee, and HELEN STEUART, and others.

CHARLES C. STEUART, Trustee, and HELEN STEUART, and others v. FREDERICK C. MEYER.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

March 26, 1878

The cause was argued before BARTOL, C.J., BRENT, MILLER and ALVEY, J.

Thomas R. Presstman and John Johnson, for Frederick C. Meyer.

Edgar H. Gans and John P. Poe, for Charles C. and Helen Steuart, and Philip and Mary Hanschert.

ALVEY J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appeal on the part of the purchaser, Meyer, must be dismissed.It is taken from an order of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City giving leave to parties interested to file a bill of review of an order ratifying a collector's sale of real estate, passed under section 51 of Art. 81 of the Code, as re-enacted by the Act of 1874, ch. 483.Without deciding any thing as to whether such an order is the proper subject of a bill of review, or a supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review, or whether the more appropriate remedy would be an application by petition for a rescission of the order and a re-hearing on the merits, it would seem to be clear that the order simply giving the leave to file a bill of review is not the subject of an appeal to this Court.Such an order definitely decides no matter of right, but is entirely interlocutory; and it has been too often decided by this Court to be again the subject of review, that such orders are not the subjects of appeal.If authorities upon this question be needed, it is only necessary to refer to the cases of Snowden vs. Dorsey,6 H. & J., 114;Hagthorp vs. Hook,1 Gill & J., 270;Claggett vs. Crawford,12 Gill & J., 275;Hill vs. Reifsnider,39 Md., 429.This appeal, therefore, must be dismissed.

And we think it equally plain that the appeal taken by the petitioners, the owners of the property sold, directly from the order ratifying the collector's sale, must be dismissed.In passing the order appealed from the Court was not in the exercise of its general jurisdiction, but of a special authority; and the manner of its exercise is particularly described by the statute, and there is no provision made for an appeal to this Court.In such case this Court cannot afford the right of appeal by construction but the presumption is, if the right of appeal had been intended to be given, there would have been express provision for it.Condon's Case, 8 Gill & John., 443;Savage Manf. Co. vs. Owings,3 Gill, 497;Carter vs. Dennison,7 Gill, 157;Kinnear & Willis vs. Lee & Reynolds,28 Md., 488.

In the ex parte case of the Tax Sale of Lot 17242 Md., 196, the appeal was entertained; but it was purely an ex parte proceeding, brought to this Court for the...