Waters v. Engle

• Decision Date: 10 March 1880
• Citation: 53 Md. 179
• Parties: JAMES K. WATERS v. JOHN M. ENGLE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

53 Md. 179

JAMES K. WATERS v. JOHN M. ENGLE.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

March 10, 1880

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Frederick County.

The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

The cause was submitted to BARTOL, C.J., BOWIE, BRENT, ALVEY MILLER and ROBINSON, JJ.

Frederick J. Nelson, for the appellant.

Noah Bowlus and James McSherry, for the appellee.

Bowie J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Frederick County, striking out the entry "satisfied" from the record of a judgment of that court, rendered in favor of the appellee against the appellant.

The record shows that the appellee obtained the judgment against the appellant on the 20th of February, 1877, for $283.13 with interest and costs, on which he sued out an attachment, by way of execution, on the 21st of February, and laid the same, on same day, in the hands of Mary C. Whitmore, executrix of David and others, as garnishees.

On the 30th of March, ensuing, an order was filed in the case, in the words following, viz:

John M. Engle ) No. 77, Trials, February Term, 1877.

v. )

James K. Waters. ) No. 3, Orig., May Term, 1877.

In the above case, the Clerk will enter the judgment "satisfied," upon payment of costs by the defendant.

John M. Engle.

On the 29th of May following, there was filed in the cause an order of the plaintiff to strike out the entry of "satisfied" and enter "satisfied to the extent of $165.00, amount paid plaintiff," etc. And, also, on the same day, the appellee filed his petition in said cause, setting forth the preceding facts and praying that the original order might be withdrawn from the files of the court, and to strike out the docket entry thereof, alleging, inter alia, that said order was obtained through surprise and mistake, and procured by the deceit, imposition and fraud of the defendant; that the amount paid to the petitioner by the defendant was much less than the judgment, and did not constitute satisfaction in law; lastly, that the condition annexed to the order, the payment of costs, was not complied with, and the entry of ""satisfied," by the Clerk, was unauthorized.

The motion to strike out the entry "satisfied" coming on to be heard, testimony was taken by both parties, and being argued by counsel, the court decided that the motion be granted and the entry "satisfied" struck out. Whereupon the defendant excepted to said decision and tendered his bill of exceptions, which was signed and sealed by the court.

The appellant's grounds of appeal are, that:

1st. The order of the 30th of March, 1877, was filed under the Act of 1840, ch. 96, "declaratory of the law authorizing the closing of judgments," codified in Art. 18, sec. 14, of the Code of Pub. Gen. Laws, and was a satisfaction of the judgment.

2nd. There was no irregularity in the entry of "satisfied."

3rd. There was no surprise, fraud or mistake.

4th. The court below had no power to control the record after such a lapse of time.

Considering these objections briefly, in their order, it is obvious that the power conferred upon the Clerk is not a judicial power from which there is no appeal or right of review, but a ministerial duty invested in him, virtute officii, which he is to discharge subject to the control of the court of which he is the officer.

Although the Clerk is invested by the Code with the specific power to enter any judgment or decree "satisfied," upon the order in writing of the plaintiff or his attorney, yet he is required to file such order among the papers in the cause, doubtless, to the end that his action may be subject to the supervision or correction of the court.

It never was designed to invest him with an absolute, irrevocable power, or to deprive the court of its control over its own officers and its own records.

The object of the law, we apprehend, was to authorize the Clerk to do, in the absence of the court, what the court, if present, would as a matter of course order to be done, leaving the power of the court over such acts unimpaired.

Special powers conferred upon an officer must be strictly construed. It must...