State Roads Com'n for and on Behalf of State v. Lassiter, 100
| Decision Date | 08 December 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 100,100 |
| Citation | 196 Md. 552,77 A.2d 16 |
| Parties | STATE ROADS COMMISSION FOR AND ON BEHALF OF STATE v. LASSITER et al. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
J. Clarke Murphy, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen. (Hall Hammond, Atty. Gen., Joseph D. Buscher, Sp. Atty. Gen., D. Eugene Walsh, Westminster, Md., on the record), for appellants.
Theodore F. Brown, Westminster (Brown & Shipley, Westminster, on the brief), for appellees.
Before MARBURY, C. J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, HENDERSON and MARKELL, JJ.
This appeal, from a judgment in a condemnation suit entered on July 5, 1950 was filed on July 27, 1950. The transcript was filed in this court on September 27, 1950. The appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that it was not taken within ten days, and that the record was not transmitted within thirty days, as required by Code, Article 33A, Section 12. The appellants resist the motion on the ground that the time for taking the appeal was extended to thirty days and the time for transmitting the record to sixty days, by Rule 2 of the 'Rules and Regulations Respecting Appeals', first adopted by this court in 1945, and readopted without change in 1947. We advanced the case to hear argument upon the motion.
Similar arguments were advanced in the cases of Robertson v. Dorsey, Md., 73 A.2d 503, 504 and Grant v. Curtin, Md., 71 A.2d 304, 306. We held that Rule 2 did not supersede special statutory exceptions dealing with the time for appeal. We think those cases are controlling. We find no merit in the appellant's contention that these cases are distinguishable because the exceptions there considered were each included in Article 5 of the Code. Nor do we find a sufficient ground of distinction in the fact that we subsequently amended Rule 2, on February 17, 1950, to expressly modify the statutory exception dealt with in the Curtin case, or that the Robertson case was based, in part, upon the prior decision in Riggin v. Wyatt, 139 Md. 476, 115 A. 755.
It is true that the words of Rule 2, standing alone, are broad enough to include all appeals, and the provisions of section 18, or section 18A, Article IV of the Maryland Constitution, may properly be held to confer the power upon this court to modify or repeal existing statutory provisions as to the time of appeal. But repeals by implication are never favored, and it is significant that in the adoption of the General Rules of Practice and Procedure special provisions were included to indicate specifically the effect on existing laws and rules. Since the power to deal with the subject matter is presumably shared with the legislature, it is peculiarly appropriate that changes in this field should not be left to implication.
In adopting sections 12 and 13 of Article 33A (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Herzinger v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore
...no bills of exceptions were prepared or submitted to the trial judge. The city relies strongly upon the case of State Roads Commission v. Lassiter, 196 Md. 552, 77 A.2d 16, in which we held that the special statutory provisions as to time of appeal and for transmission of the record in cond......
-
Renz v. Bonfield Holding Co., 148
... ... See also Edwardsen v. State, 220 [161 A.2d 438] Md. 82, 88, 151 A.2d 132. In State Roads Commission v. Lassiter, 196 Md. 552, 77 A.2d 16, ... ...
- Kulbitsky v. Zimnoch, 42
-
Southern Maryland Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Albrittain
...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, 'In o......