Wilmer v. Light St. Sav. & Bldg. Ass'n of Baltimore City

Decision Date21 June 1922
Docket NumberNo. 21.,21.
Citation118 A. 414
PartiesWILMER v. LIGHT ST. SAV. & BLDG. ASS'N OF BALTIMORE CITY et al.
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City; Chas. W. Heuisler, Judge. "To be officially reported."

Action by Edwin M. Wilmer, trustee, against the Light Street Savings & Building Association of Baltimore City and others. Decree for defendants and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Argued before BOYD, C. J., and BRISCOE, THOMAS, PATTISON, URNER, STOCKBRIDGE, and OFFUTT, JJ.

David Ash, of Baltimore, for appellant.

Frank Driscoll, of Baltimore (G. Clem Graetzel, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees.

BRISCOE, J. The controlling question on this appeal is whether the circuit court of Baltimore City had jurisdiction to hear and determine this cause, on removal to it for trial from circuit court No. 2 of Baltimore City, and to pass the decree dated the 19th of November, 1921, which is set out in the record. From this decree an appeal has been taken.

It appears from the record that the plaintiff below, the appellant here, filed an amended bill of complaint on the 13th of December, 1920, for an account and discovery, against the defendants, the appellees here, in circuit court No. 2 of Baltimore City, and asked for the usual process on the bill. The defendants appeared on the 24th and 25th of January, 1921, and answered the amended bill. On the 31st of October, 1921, the following suggestion and affidavit for removal was made by the defendants in circuit court No. 2 of Baltimore City:

"The Light Street Savings & Building Association of Baltimore City, the Ridge Realty Company, the Savings & Loan Association of Baltimore City, and Isaac Merowitz, the defendants in the above-entitled case, believe, that the judge sitting in said court will not give a fair and due consideration to the subject-matter of said case, and pray the court to order and direct the removal of the record of proceedings in this case to some other judge of the supreme bench of Baltimore City to render a final decision thereon."

On the 31st day of October, 1921, it was ordered by circuit court No. 2 of Baltimore City:

"That the record and proceedings, and a copy of the docket entries under seal in the above-entitled case be transmitted for trial to the circuit court of Baltimore City."

Circuit court No. 2 of Baltimore City was without authority and clearly in error, we think, in ordering the record and proceedings of this case to be transmitted for trial to the circuit court of Baltimore City. These courts are both separate and distinct courts of equity, with exclusive jurisdiction in equity within the limits of the City of Baltimore. The circuit court of Baltimore City was one of the courts established and provided in and for the Eighth judicial circuit of Maryland by section 27 of article 4 of the Constitution of 1807, and with exclusive jurisdiction in equity, as stated in section 29, article 4, of the Constitution.

Circuit court No. 2 of Baltimore City was established in and for the city of Baltimore as an additional court for the city by chapter 194 of the Acts of 1888. The powers and jurisdiction of this court, it was provided by the act, shall be concurrent with those now held and exercised by the circuit court of Baltimore City, and both of said courts shall have the same terms and return days, subject to such rules and regulations for a proper distribution and apportionment of business between them as the supreme bench of Baltimore shall from time to time prescribe. Section 2 of the act of 1888 also provided for the election of another judge of the supreme bench of Baltimore City, and the said judge, when elected, to be subject to all the provisions of the Constitution relating to the supreme bench in Baltimore City and the several judges thereof. By section 3 of the same act (1888) it was also provided that there shall be elected at the same election, by the legal and qualified voters of Baltimore City, a clerk for circuit court No. 2 of Baltimore City, who shall be subject to all the provisions of the Constitution, relating to the clerk of the circuit court of Baltimore City. It will thus be seen that the legislature of 1888 not only established another court for the city of Baltimore, to be styled circuit court No. 2 of Baltimore City, but also provided for the election of another judge of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City and a clerk for the last-named court. Acts of 1888, c. 194; section 39, art. 4, Const. 1867.

The law is well settled in this state,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Olson v. Love
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • May 4, 1964
    ...That there is no right of removal in equity suits is, we think, firmly settled. Cooke v. Cooke, 41 Md. 362; Wilmer v. Light Street Svgs. and Bldg. Assn., 141 Md. 238, 118 A. 414. This rule has been repeatedly recognized in other cases where it was not actually involved, but was referred to ......
  • Wilmer v. Light St. Sav. & Bldg. Ass'n of Baltimore City
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • June 21, 1922
  • Slacum v. Jolley
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • June 10, 1927
    ... ... Baltimore (Harold Tschudi, of Baltimore, T ... Sangston ... Kane, 125 Md. 136, 93 A. 393; ... Wilmer v. Light St. Sav. & Bldg. Assn., 141 Md. 241, ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT