Michigan Nat. Bank v. Racine
| Decision Date | 02 April 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 232,232 |
| Citation | 234 Md. 250,198 A.2d 898 |
| Parties | MICHIGAN NATIONAL BANK v. James T. RACINE, etc. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
C. Orman Manahan, Ellicott City, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
Before HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY and MARBURY, JJ.
On November 14, 1962, the Michigan National Bank, a non-resident corporation, brought an attachment proceeding against the appellee, a resident of Baltimore City, doing business at E. Monument Street, upon a note and trust receipt covering the purchase of a home trailer. The short note alleged that the appellee had fraudulently sold the trailer without payment of his obligation to the plaintiff. An affidavit subsequently filed alleged that the defendant was about to remove his property from this State with intent to defraud creditors. Two attachments were issued. Under the first one the sheriff seized a 1963 Mercury automobile owned by Racine and impounded it at Greenwood's Garage. Under the second attachment, laid in the hands of a local bank, the garnishee confessed assets of $19.42. After a motion to quash and other pleadings, Judge Byrnes held a hearing on the merits and the case was submitted for his determination without a jury. On March 13, 1963, he filed an opinion in which, among other things, he stated: He quashed the attachment but directed the clerk to enter a judgment nisi for the plaintiff in the short note case.
The plaintiff filed a motion for new trial, in the attachment case only, alleging in addition to the usual grounds that there was evidence of constructive fraud and removal of 'cash property' from the State. About two months later the plaintiff filed a 'supplemental motion for a new trial' alleging that the Court Reporter had informed it that his notes of the hearing of March 13 had been lost. After hearing, on June 13, 1963, Judge Byrnes stated that 'after thoroughly reviewing the testimony in this case and reflecting upon the arguments in the motions for new trial the Court has concluded that the motion and supplemental motion must be denied.'
On July 1, 1963, the Ford Motor Credit Company petitioned the court to direct that the Mercury automobile held at Greenwood's Garage be turned over to it, reciting that it held a recorded conditional contract of sale covering the vehicle dated October 8, 1962, and that Racine had been in default under that contract since December, 1962. Another recital was that the plaintiff, Michigan National, 'has acknowledged to Petitioner that it recognizes the priority of Petitioner's claim to the vehicle under its conditional sales contract.' An order nisi was served upon the plaintiff, but no answer was filed by it. On July 15, 1963, the plaintiff entered an appeal to this Court from 'the order and judgment * * * of March 11, 1963 * * * quashing the attachment issued in the above case, and from the order of June 13th, 1963, overruling the original and supplemental motions for a new new trial * * *.' On July 17, 1963, the court signed an order directing the sheriff and Greenwood's Garage to turn over possession of the Mercury automobile to Ford Motor Credit Company.
There is some question whether, because of the special nature of an attachment proceeding, a timely motion for a new trial stays the running of the 30-day appeal period. See Code (1963 Supp.), Art. 5, sec. 20A. But as no specific mention is made of this in the Maryland Rules regarding attachment (Subtitle G), we shall assume that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kennedy v. State
...the last case where this Court has been concerned with the absence of a stenographic transcript. See, e. g., Michigan Nat. Bank v. Racine, 234 Md. 250, 253-54, 198 A.2d 898 (1964); Harmon v. State, 227 Md. 602, 607, 177 A.2d 902 (1962); Brinkley v. State, 224 Md. 391, 168 A.2d 191, cert. de......
-
Smith v. State
...of jury trial is knowingly and intelligently made). Cf. In re: Dewayne H., 290 Md. ---, 430 A.2d 76 (1981); Michigan Nat. Bank v. Racine, 234 Md. 250, 198 A.2d 898 (1964). The instant case, however, differs in several First, we are not confronted here with pre-trial proceedings governed by ......
-
Bradley v. Hazard Technology Co., Inc., 30
...200 A.2d 641, 642-43, cert. denied, Long v. Maryland, 379 U.S. 917, 85 S.Ct. 268, 13 L.Ed.2d 187 (1964); Michigan Nat. Bank v. Racine, 234 Md. 250, 253, 198 A.2d 898, 899 (1964). We faced this issue in the criminal context in Smith, supra, where the appellant argued he was denied his right ......
-
State v. Long, 337
...We think, however, that these facts do not, in and of themselves, require or justify the award of a new trial. Cf. Michigan Nat. Bank v. Racine, 234 Md. 250, 253, 198 A.2d 898, and cases cited. In the late case of Norvell v. Illinois, 373 U.S. 420, 83 S.Ct. 1366, 10 L.Ed.2d 456, the Supreme......