Rehm v. Cumberland Coal Co. of Baltimore City, Inc., 39.

• Decision Date: 04 December 1935
• Docket Number: No. 39.,39.
• Citation: 181 A. 724
• Parties: REHM v. CUMBERLAND COAL CO. OF BALTIMORE CITY, Inc., et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

181 A. 724

REHM

v. CUMBERLAND COAL CO. OF BALTIMORE CITY, Inc., et al.^*

No. 39.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Dec. 4, 1935.

Appeal from Baltimore City Court; Rowland K. Adams, Judge.

Certiorari proceeding by Joseph J. Rehm, Jr., against Cumberland Coal Company of Baltimore City, Incorporated, and T. Bayard Williams, Presiding Justice of the Peace of the People's Court of Baltimore City. From an order quashing the writ, petitioner appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before BOND, C J., and URNER, OFFUTT, PARKE, SLOAN, MITCHELL, SHEHAN, and JOHNSON, JJ.

W. Conwell Smith and J. LeRoy Hopkins, both of Baltimore (Joseph J. Rehm, W. Lester Baldwin, Webster S. Blades, T. Barton Harrington, Biscoe L. Gray, and Abram C. Joseph, all of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

G. Randolph Aiken, of Baltimore, for Cumberland Coal Co.

JOHNSON, Judge.

At an ex parte trial in the people's court of Baltimore City judgment was entered in favor of the Cumberland Coal Company against George J. Rehm, Jr., for $18.00 and costs, whereupon the judgment debtor filed in the Baltimore City court his petition against the coal company and the presiding justice of the people's court for the writ of certiorari in the premises, assigning as a reason therefor that the people's court acquired no jurisdiction because the praecipe, to which was attached an itemized statement of his indebtedness, was signed by a collection agency as agent of the coal company, which agency it was alleged again appeared in the people's court on the trial date and proved the claim against him, and that its conduct amounted to the practice of law, contrary to the intent and purpose of sections 19 and 20, article 10, of the Code, and in violation of the provisions of section 626 of the Baltimore City Charter (Code Pub. Loc.Laws 1930, art. 4).

A further reason that the people's court was without jurisdiction was assigned upon the ground that the petitioner had not been duly summoned.

The petition for the writ being granted, the proceedings in the case were certified to the judge of the Baltimore City court, who, after considering them and hearing the parties interested in the case and considering the authorities cited by them, granted the motion of the coal company to quash the writ, and from this action an appeal is taken to this court.

The proceedings showed the defendant was duly summoned and no contention in respect thereto being raised by appellant's brief or in oral argument, it is unnecessary to give further consideration to that proposition.

The substantial question presented is narrow and involves a determination as to whether the judgment rendered in the people's court is null and void. Section 626 of the Baltimore City Charter (1927) contains a provision that "No Justice of the Peace, in any case of debt or damages whatever, shall issue a summons except on application for the same, in writing, by the plaintiff or his attorney," etc. Code Pub.Loc.Laws 1930, art. 4, § 626.

Section 19 of article 10 of the Code makes it an offense punishable by fine or imprisonment for any person to receive reward for services as an attorney at law unless previously admitted to the bar, while section 20 of the same article subjects any one not entitled to practice law to a penalty of fine or imprisonment for representing himself as being entitled to practice.

Briefly stated, Rehm's contention is that the conduct of the collection agency in the people's court of Baltimore City was violative of the spirit and intent of the above sections of the Code, the agency having no right to practice the profession of law; that the word "attorney"as used in section 626 of the Balt...