Olson v. Love
| Decision Date | 04 May 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 209,209 |
| Citation | 234 Md. 503,200 A.2d 66 |
| Parties | Janet I. OLSON v. Carl G. LOVE et al. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
John S. McInerney, Rockville, for appellees.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, PRESCOTT, HORNEY and SYBERT, JJ.
The appeal in this suit in equity involving the custody of a child is from an order of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County denying the appellant's suggestion for removal. The appellant's contention in this Court is that she is entitled, as a matter of right, under Maryland Rule 542 a, to a removal of the case. Since her claim is not founded upon an alleged constitutional right and the denial thereof, even if we were to assume that the Circuit Court had power to order the removal of an equity suit, its power to act would be discretionary, and an order granting or refusing removal would constitute only an interlocutory order, and not a final order subject to immediate appeal. Code (1957), Art. 5, sec. 1; Tidewater Portland Cement Co. v. State, 122 Md. 96, 89 A. 327; Lee v. State, 161 Md. 430, 433, 157 A. 723. An observation by Judge Delaplaine in Heslop v. State, 202 Md. 123, at 126, 95 A.2d 880, that it was unnecessary to decide a question as to immediate appealability, which was not presented (because no immediate appeal had been taken), but which might have involved a challenge to Lee, could hardly be said to have impaired Lee, which Judge Delaplaine had just cited with approval. More recently, the Lee case was cited and quoted with approval and at some length in Pearlman v. State, 226 Md. 67, 71-72, 172 A.2d 395. We think that the appeal here must be dismissed as being from an order not final in nature.
Since, however, the question of the removability of a suit in equity might be made the basis of a subsequent appeal to this Court, we shall, as authorized by Rule 885, express our view with regard thereto. We hold that no right of removal exists in equity suits.
The appellant's reliance on Rule 542 a is misplaced. The Rule is in that portion of Chapter 500 which deals with suits at law, and it applies 'to procedure at law only.' See also Rule 2 b 1. Nor can the appellant derive any aid from Const., Art. IV, sec. 8 or Code (1957, Cum.Supp., 1963), Art. 75, sec. 44, dealing with removal. Those provisions and Rule 542 are all substantially alike. Bullock v. State, 230 Md. 280, 283, 186 A.2d 888.
That there is no right of removal in equity suits is, we think, firmly settled. Cooke v. Cooke, 41 Md. 362; Wilmer v. Light Street Svgs. and Bldg. Assn., 141 Md. 238, 118 A. 414. This rule has been repeatedly recognized in other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davidson v. Miller
...maintains a distinction between law and equity; this constitutional removal provision does not relate to equity actions. Olson v. Love, 234 Md. 503, 200 A.2d 66 (1964).6 A different situation prevails in Baltimore City's criminal court-since there is just one such court (though comprised of......
-
Firstman v. Atlantic Const. & Supply Co.
...evidentiary justification.' Md., 344 A.2d at 441-442.8 The constitutional provision does not relate to equity cases. Olson v. Love, 234 Md. 503, 200 A.2d 66 (1964). Certain non-jury law cases are removable under the provisions. Greenberg v. Dunn, 245 Md. 651, 227 A.2d 242 (1967).9 The first......
-
Link v. Link
...The short answer to this question, as recognized by the chancellor, is that there is no right of removal in equity. Olson v. Love, 234 Md. 503, 504, 200 A.2d 66. Even if the petition had been to recuse the judge for prejudice, the grounds offered were too absurd to warrant a reply to that '......
-
Andrews v. Governor of Maryland
...City and the Criminal Court of Baltimore.2 Article IV, § 8 of the Constitution does not pertain to equity actions. Olson v. Love, 234 Md. 503, 200 A.2d 66 (1964).3 See, The Evening Sun, Sept. 1, 1976, at A. 18; The News American, Sept. 1, 1976, at 1; The Sun, Sept. 3, 1976, at A. 14; Baltim......