Platt v. Wilson., 6.
| Decision Date | 10 November 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 6.,6. |
| Citation | 62 A.2d 191 |
| Parties | PLATT v. WILSON. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Prince George's County; John B. Gray, Jr., Judge.
Suit to impress an automobile with trust by Irene S. Wilson against John W. Platt, individually and as administrator of the estate of William C. Platt, deceased. From the decree, the defendant appeals.
Appeal dismissed, costs.
McKay & Gordon, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Walter L. Green, Green, Whalin, Babcock & Bell, and Henry A. Babcock, all of Hyattsville, for appellee.
Submitted to MARBURY, C. J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON, and MARKELL, JJ.
This appeal is from a decree of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, in equity, directing an administrator to assign title to an Oldsmobile to the appellee upon payment by her of the sum of $238.91, or, if the administrator should fail or refuse to assign, appointing a trustee without bond to make the assignment. The suit was instituted by the appellee in order to impress the automobile with a trust in her favor, upon the allegation that she had supplied all the funds for the purchase of the car, which was titled in the name of the decedent, her fiancee.
The appellant, the father of the decedent who had assigned the title to himself, individually, contends that there was no evidence offered at the trial legally sufficient to establish a resulting trust, and that the appellee was guilty of laches and estopped from asserting her claim by her delay until after the estate had been administered. The appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground, among others, that the appellant has printed no appendix to his brief.
We think the motion must be granted. We have indicated in several recent cases that this court will not undertake to pass upon testimony contained in the transcript, but not printed in an appendix to the brief, as contemplated by rule 39 of this court, so as to be available to each member of the court. Hill v. State, Md., 59 A.2d 630, 633; Naughton v. Paul Jones & Co., Md., 59 A.2d 496; Butler v. Reed-Avery Co., 186 Md. 686, 48 A.2d 436; Strohecker v. Schumacher & Seiler, 185 Md. 144, 146, 43 A.2d 208. Not only is there no appendix containing testimony, but the careful opinion of the chancellor, incorporated in the transcript, is not reproduced in an appendix, as required by Rule 36 of this court. It appears from a reading of this opinion that important documentary and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fleming v. Prince George's County
...264 (1974), and cases there cited including State Roads Comm. v. Sharper,231 Md. 411, 413, 190 A.2d 647 (1963), and Platt v. Wilson, 191 Md. 371, 373, 62 A.2d 191 (1948). We do not understand from the record that there was an attempt to place these pages in evidence. It goes without saying ......
-
Williams v. State
...52 A.2d 476; Grimm v. Virts, 189 Md. 297, 299, 55 A.2d 716; Naughton v. Paul Jones & Co., 190 Md. 599, 604, 59 A.2d 496; Platt v. Wilson, 191 Md. 371, 62 A.2d 191; Bishop v. Richard, 193 Md. 6, 8, 65 A.2d 334; Musser v. Citizens Bank of Takoma Park, 195 Md. 100, 72 A.2d 762; Sunshine Laundr......
-
Yamin v. State, 109
...member to member of this Court so that each oen may hunt up for himself what the appellant is discussing in his brief.' In Platt v. Wilson, 191 Md. 371, 62 A.2d 191, decided November 10, 1948, the appeal was dismissed on account of the failure of the appellant to include an appendix to his ......
-
McBurnie v. McBurnie, 240
...decided the case as presented by these facts. We dismissed an appeal because no appendix was printed by the appellant in Platt v. Wilson, 191 Md. 371, 62 A.2d 191, and, in the absence of printed testimony, we confined ourselves to the facts stated in the opinion of the chancellor in Queen v......