Tedrow v. Ford Motor Co., 129
Decision Date | 15 December 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 129,129 |
Citation | 260 Md. 142,271 A.2d 688 |
Parties | Robert D. TEDROW, Jr. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Frank R. Holtzman (member of New York Bar), Washington, D. C. (Robert D. Tedrow, Jr., in pro. per., on the brief), for appellant.
Laidler B. Mackall, Washington, D. C. (James C. Christopher, Bethesda, on the brief), for Ford Motor Co., part of appellees; by S. Michael Pincus, Silver Spring (Samuel Gordon, Silver Spring, on the brief), for Martin Deskin, and other appellees.
Argued before HAMMOND, C. J., and BARNES, McWILLIAMS, SINGLEY, SMITH and DIGGES, JJ.
This attempted appeal from an order granting summary judgment calls for further reiteration of Maryland Rule 605 a. The appellant, Robert D. Tedrow, Jr., dissatisfied with the performance of a used automobile, brought an action in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County against eight defendants, including the Ford Motor Company for fraud, civil conspiracy, breach of contract and breach of warranty. Judge Miller granted summary judgment in favor of five of the defendants, including Ford, and left undisturbed the entire declaration against the defendants Collum, Van Veen and Shelton Motors. Because this order is not finally dispositive of the appellant's case we have concluded on our own motion that under Rule 605 a his appeal must be dismissed. This rule provides:
(Emphasis supplied.)
Judge Miller's order for summary judgment contained neither an expressed determination that there was no just reason for delay nor an expressed direction for the entry of final judgment for costs against Tedrow. The absence alone of these explicit directions by the trial court prevents the taking of an appeal at this time. Indeed, this is an instant replay of the situation in Picking v. State Finance Co., 257 Md. 554, 558, 263...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kaouris v. Kaouris
... ... at 369, 190 A. at 837. See also Zulver Realty Co. v. Snyder, 191 Md. 374, 380, 62 A.2d 276, 278 (1948); ... at 249; Redwood v. Howison, 129 Md. 577, 592, 99 A. 863, 868 (1917), and to direct ... ...
-
Planning Bd. of Howard County v. Mortimer
...and direction required under Rule 605a." Accord Blucher v. Ekstrom, 309 Md. 458, 462, 524 A.2d 1235, 1237 (1987); Tedrow v. Ford Motor Co., 260 Md. 142, 271 A.2d 688 (1970); Picking v. State Fin. Co., 257 Md. 554, 263 A.2d 572 (1970). In any case, Rule 2-602 now contains explicit language m......
-
Snowden v. Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co.
...Christ, 266 Md. 220, 222, 292 A.2d 84 (1972); Brooks v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 261 Md. 278, 274 A.2d 345 (1971); Tedrow v. Ford Motor Co., 260 Md. 142, 271 A.2d 688 (1970); Picking v. State Finance Co., 257 Md. 554, 557-558, 263 A.2d 572 (1970). 3 Consequently, if a trial court's order is d......
-
Henley v. Prince George's County
...and subject to revision in the discretion of the trial court. Maryland Rule 605 a (now Rule 2-602). Tedrow v. Ford Motor Co., 260 Md. 142, 144-45, 271 A.2d 688 (1970); Associated Realty Co. v. Kimmelman, 19 Md.App. 368, 374, 311 A.2d 464 (1973). We shall assume for purposes of this case tha......