Southern Maryland Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Albrittain
Decision Date | 08 December 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 78,78 |
Parties | SOUTHERN MARYLAND ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v. Henry B. ALBRITTAIN et ux. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
James C. Mitchell, LaPlata (Thomas C. Hayden, Jr., and Mitchell & Hayden, La Plata, on the brief) for appellant.
Franklin B. Olmsted, LaPlata, for appellees.
Before HAMMOND, C. J., and BARNES, McWILLIAMS, FINAN and SINGLEY, JJ.
We have here a by-product of a Charles County condemnation case. The appellant (the company), in April 1968, filed its petition to condemn a right-of-way across the land of the appellee upon which it proposed to construct part of an electric transmission line. The case was tried in January 1969 before Bowen, J., and a jury. Witnesses for the company testified that $7,000 would suffice for the damages sustained by the appellee. The inquisition returned by the jury made it $21,100. Stunned by the size of the award the company abandoned the proceeding. Code, Art. 33A, § 13(a) (1967 Repl.Vol.).
In March 1969 the company, alleging the inability of the parties to agree 'as to the proper amount of reasonable legal and appraisal fees incurred by' the appellee, moved the court to determine the amount thereof. Code, Art. 33A, § 13(d), infra. After a hearing Judge Bowen determined that a reasonable attorney's fee would be $4,000 which amount was thereupon 'entered as a part of the costs.' From the ensuing judgment for costs the company has appealed. Although we are inclined to view with compassion the company's obvious vexation, nevertheless we must grant appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal.
The language of § 13(d), as enacted by Chapter 52 of the Acts of 1963, which in substantially the same language was first enacted by Chapter 526 of the Acts of 1959, 1 is as follows:
2
Few principles of law are more firmly established than the rule in the field of eminent domain that the court exercises a special statutory jurisdiction and that in the absence of an express grant by the Legislature no appeal lies to this Court. State Roads Commission for and on Behalf of State v. Lassiter, 196 Md. 552, 77 A.2d 16 (1950). In Pumphrey v. State Roads Commission, 175 Md. 498, 503, 2 A.2d 668, 670 (1938), Judge Offutt, for the Court, said:
'In other words it (the State Roads Commission) contends that the appellate procedure is governed by the common law and the Law Rules of that court. But that is not the case. Code, Art. 33A, sec. 12, prescribing the procedure for an appeal to this court from any judgment entered in a condemnation case tried under the provisions of that Article, provides that 'any such appeal shall be entered in writing * * *.'
(Emphasis added.)
To the same effect see Simpler v. State to Use of Boyd, 223 Md. 456, 460-461, 165 A.2d 464 (1960).
The company seeks to finesse the absence of a statute expressly granting a right of appeal by advancing the argument that § 13(d), supra, 'confers upon * * * (the appellee) a claim for debt against the * * * (company)' upon abandonment of the proceedings, and that appeals from decision in actions of debt are not a 'new, limited statutory authority conferred upon the courts.' It seems to us that the company, by choosing to use the word 'debt,' intends to connote that for which an action of debt or indebitatus assumpsit will lie. In 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries 155 (1825), it is said:
'The legal acceptation of 'debt' is a sum of money due by certain and express agreement: as by a bond for a determinate sum; a bill or note; a special bargain, or a rent reserved on a lease, where the quantity is fixed and specified, and does not depend upon any subsequent valuation to settle it.'
There was no express agreement here but even if there had been it would have been translated, upon its filing with the clerk, directly into a part of the costs of the case, a judgment for which would have been entered upon motion. As it happened the amount was determined by the court and it became automatically a part of the costs and subject to becoming a judgment immediately thereafter. Ordinarily a judgment or decree awarding costs, but making no other adjudication is not appealable. 4 Am.Jur.2d, Appeal and Error § 128 (1962). Of course one ought to be ready to concede that in unusual or bizarre circumstances such a judgment might be appealable but we see no reason to expatiate...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pack Shack v. Howard County
... 808 A.2d 795 371 Md. 243 The PACK SHACK, INC., ... HOWARD COUNTY, Maryland ... No. 71, ... ...
-
Solko v. State Roads Com'n of State Highway Admin.
...Supp.) (emphasis in original).11 The only case which is remotely relevant is Southern Maryland Electric Co-operative, Inc. v. Albrittain, 256 Md. 39, 259 A.2d 311 (1969), where the Court of Appeals held that the attorney's fees in a condemnation case become part of the costs paid by the pla......
-
Utilities v. WSSC
...rule in the field of eminent domain that the court exercises a special statutory jurisdiction...." Southern Maryland Elec. Co-op. v. Albrittain, 256 Md. 39, 42, 259 A.2d 311, 313 (1969). In fact, a condemnation proceeding may be the quintessential "special form of remedy for a specific type......
- Jenkins v. Mehra